Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Golders Green (Jewish) Burial Ground Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment

Exeter Corporation Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow

Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Severn Navigation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill [Lords],

Urmston Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Metropolitan Common Scheme (Palewell) Provisional Order Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Guildford) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ross and Cromarty (Dornie Bridge) Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Lanarkshire County Council Bill,

Order [19th March] that the Bill be committed read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

PURCHASING COMMISSION (BRITISH GOODS).

Mr. CHORLTON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amount has been expended on British goods by the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission which is entrusted with the expenditure of the British share of the Boxer indemnity?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The amount expended by the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission on British goods up to 31st December, 1934, was £2,533,254 16s. 1d.

BRITISH EMBASSY.

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that Italy and Soviet Russia have already appointed ambassadors to China and that the Japanese Government are about to do likewise, His Majesty's Government will reconsider the decision not to raise the British Legation to the status of an Embassy?

Sir J. SIMON: I wish to thank my hon. Friend for having postponed this question from last Wednesday. As the House will now be aware, the status of His Majesty's Legation in China is to be raised to that of an Embassy, and I welcome this opportunity of saying that
this decision is a demonstration of the good will of His Majesty's Government toward the Chinese Government and people, and marks His Majesty's Government's appreciation of the importance of the mutual interests of the two countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

COVENANT.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in advocating the use of the League of Nations for the settlement of disputes, any distinction is drawn between disputes arising under Article 11 and Article 15 of the Covenant.

Sir J. SIMON: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the submission of disputes to the League of Nations under one or other of these Articles. The question whether in any given dispute the procedure under Article 11 or under Article 15 is appropriate depends on the circum stances of the case.

GERMANY.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has invited the German Government to declare its policy for maintaining peace and collective security; and whether Germany is prepared to accept the machinery of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the adjustment of any matters of international difficulty which may arise?

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the speeches made by the Prime Minister and myself in the House on the 2nd May. As regards the second part of the question, Germany gave notice of her intention to withdraw from the League of Nations in October, 1933, since which time she has not participated in the meetings or at the discussions at Geneva.

Mr. GRENFELL: My intention was to ask whether the Government had put these two points in recent conversations with Germany?

Sir J. SIMON: At the Berlin conversations in March last we strongly pressed
for the return of Germany to the League, and I would refer the hon. Member, in this connection, to my speech of 2nd May.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (TRADE FAIR).

Mr. CHORLTON: 11.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to what extent his Department is participating in the British Trade Fair in Hong Kong in December; and whether it is proposed to hold a, similar exhibition in Shanghai, with a view to extending British trade in Central and Northern China?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The Department of Overseas Trade does not propose to arrange an exhibit at the British Empire and China Trade Fair, but His Excellency the Governor has accepted the position of patron and His Majesty's Consul-General and the Trade Commissioner have been authorised to accept honorary positions as members of the council of the fair. I am not aware of any proposal to hold a similar exhibition in Shanghai.

Mr. CHORLTON: Will the hon. and gallant Member tell me why we decided not to have a stand there? It is so important for trade in the East.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: On the ground of expense.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERY RESEARCH.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 12.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Interdepartmental Committee on Artificial Propagation of Fish recommended in 1932 a Government grant of £3,250 for a scheme of experiments, which grant was not made owing to national economy; and whether, in view of the importance to fisheries throughout the country of research of this nature, he will now reconsider the advisability of making this grant?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The Interdepartmental Committee to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers recommended experiments estimated by them to involve an outlay of £3,210 of capital expenditure and an annual sum of £1,150 for 10 years, making a total expenditure of £11,500. They
also recommended some experiments in the rearing of parr, at a cost of £3,010. While I am afraid I can see no immediate prospect of Government funds being available to enable these experiments to be put in hand, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the work of the committee, and particularly of the unofficial members who gave so much of their time to the investigation of this question. I fully recognise the importance of the work pro posed by the committee, and I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the possibility of putting the scheme into effect will be kept under review.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 13.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the fishery research station at Alresford has undertaken any research to determine whether spring salmon breed spring fish and autumn salmon autumn fish and if so, with what result?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Alresford station is concerned mainly with freshwater bio logical questions bearing on the subject of pollution, and no research of the nature indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend has been carried out there.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Does not this problem of fishery management require urgent attention?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, but I think this is not the most suitable occasion to carry out some of the experiments which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Cannot some of this information be obtained from the Fraser and Columbia River fisheries?

Mr. ELLIOT: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BACON CONSUMPTION.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 15.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the consumption of bacon per head of the population of Great Britain for the years 1924, 1931, and 1934, and the average price of best qualities for the same years?

Mr. ELLIOT: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with per mission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The estimated consumption of bacon per head in the United Kingdom for the years 1924, 1930 and 1934 was 26 lbs., 28.1 lbs. and 25.3 lbs., respectively Figures for Great Britain alone and for the year 1931 are not available

The annual average prices (wholesaler to retailer) of first quality English and Danish bacon (green sides) in the years 1924, 1930 and 1934 were:





English
Danish


Year.


per cwt.
per cwt.





s.
d.
s.
d.


1924
…
…
121
0
108
0


1930
…
…
126
6
97
0


1934
…
…
97
0
93
0

The average prices per lb. of streaky bacon in the years 1924,1930 and 1934, according to the Ministry of Labour Gazette were:







Per lb.


Year.




s.
d.


1924
…
…
…
…
1
4½


1930
…
…
…
…
1
4


1934
…
…
…
…
1
1¾

NOTE.—Particulars of average retail prices for best qualities are not available

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (EDMONTON GREEN).

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: 17.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the inconvenience and, in the case of old age and wound pensioners, hardship to traders and stall holders on Edmonton Green, as well as to the general public, particularly women who shop there, he will reconsider his decision to close the existing post office on the Green, at least so far as ordinary postage business is concerned?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I regret that I cannot depart from the decision already conveyed to my hon. Friend.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave dissatisfaction in the district Is he aware that there is a railway line between the Green Post Office and the proposed new post office, with gates over a level-crossing which are closed a number of times a day, thus making it difficult for old age pensioners and others to get to the new office?

Sir K. WOOD: I must remind my hon. Friend that my Department is making adequate provision for this particular district. We are going to establish a Crown Office which I understand is only a furlong away from the locality to which my hon. Friend refers. The district council asked for it, and I think the establishment of a Crown Office is in keeping with the importance of the district.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty arises from the level-crossing, which is frequently closed? Is he further aware that a petition signed by over 6,000 people has been presented, and that a deputation has been received by an officer of his Department?

Sir K. WOOD: There is difficulty and in some cases hardship where an existing office has to be closed, and sometimes persons are affected, and one naturally has a good deal of sympathy with them, but in this case provision is being made for a Crown Office adequate to the needs of the district.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to see that the employés in the Green Post Office have the first chance of employment in the new office?

Sir K. WOOD: I will think about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — TROOPING OF THE COLOUR (STANDS).

Mr. BERNAYS: 18.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any of the stands in the Mall will be retained until the 3rd June so that they may be available for spectators when His Majesty proceeds to the Horse Guards Parade for the trooping of the colour?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have given very careful consideration to this suggestion, but it has not proved possible to adopt it as regards all the stands. The stands were primarily erected to enable Members of both Houses of Parliament, of the Defence Forces, and of the Civil Service, and certain visitors from the Dominions, India and the Colonies to view the State Drive to St. Paul's Cathedral on 6th May. The seats were sold at a price no more than sufficient to cover the actual cost of erec-
tion. The materials of which the stands are composed are either hired by the con tractors or otherwise earmarked in connection with their other work, and the retention of the stands beyond the original contract period would entail considerable expenditure to meet the claims made against the contractor for non delivery of the materials. To maintain the stands until 3rd June would in addition involve further expenditure in re conditioning. In these circumstances it is not possible to retain the stands as they are. But I am glad to say that the contractors have very generously agreed to the retention without any payment at all of one stand which will be handed over to the General Officer Commanding London District for the use of relatives of the troops on parade on 3rd June, and of the Old Comrades Association. In addition I have been able to arrange satisfactory terms for the reservation of two more stands, the seats on which will be made available on payment to visitors from the Dominions, India and the Colonies on application to the High Com missioners or Ceremonial Secretary, Colonial Office, and to Members of both Houses of Parliament. As regards the latter applications should be made forth with to the Lord Chancellor's and Mr. Speaker's secretaries. Two tickets will be available for each Member and the price will be 3s. 6d. per ticket.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider re moving one of the stands towards the Horse Guards Parade so that an extra stand may be placed there to be used for the trooping of the colour?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I gather that all the stands in the Mall are to be removed except three, which are on the South side of the Mall and West of the Artillery Memorial.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITAL NURSES (TRAINING).

Mr. REMER: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a shortage of trained hospital nurses; and whether he will consider allocating some portion of public funds in the distressed areas to educate and train a limited number of suitable girls as hospital nurses either in the great hospitals locally or in hospitals in the South of England?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am aware that there is some shortage of trained hospital nurses in certain places. I understand, however, that the shortage is not due to any lack of training facilities, as in the majority of hospitals the training is provided free.

Oral Answers to Questions — BATA SHOE COMPANY.

Mr. McENTEE: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the permits granted for the entry into this country of instructors at the factory of the Bata. Shoe Company, East Tilbury, are still operative; if so, when they will expire; whether he is satisfied that the firm in question are carrying out their undertaking to observe the wages and conditions laid down in the national agreement of the boot and shoe industry in this country; whether he is aware that the firm's undertaking not to compete in the British market is not being observed; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. HUDSON: There are at present seven foreign instructors employed under permit in the factories of the Bata Shoe Company at Tilbury; four of these are in the rubber shoe factory and three in. the fabric and leather shoe factory. In addition 10 foreigners are employed under permit in managerial and technical posts. In three cases the permission runs until December next; in the remainder—including all the instructors—the date of expiry is 6th June. I have no reason to think that the company is not carrying out the arrangement made with my Department in regard to the rates of wages. The arrangement did not include an under taking not to compete in the British market.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (LANCASHIRE).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in Lancashire, including the county boroughs, on transitional payments, and also the number receiving less than the rate of standard benefits?

Mr. HUDSON: As regards the first part of the question, I am having the in formation extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it is available. As regards the.second part, I regret that this information is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (EMPLOYES, DERBYSHIRE).

Mr. T. SMITH: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mine-workers employed in the Derbyshire coalfield at the latest date available and the comparative figures for 1934 and 1931?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I have been asked to reply. The number of wage-earners on colliery books in Derbyshire at 4th May, 1935, was 45,677. The comparative figures for 1934 and 1931 were 47,492 and 53,318, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER POLLUTION (PREVENTION).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government have yet begun to pre pare a River Pollution Prevention Bill; whether it is hoped that such a Bill will prove to be non-controversial; and when it is proposed to be introduced?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend presumes my hon. and gallant Friend's reference is to a Bill to provide for the reception of trade effluents into sewers. The state of Parliamentary business precludes any Measure this Session, but my right hon. Friend has in mind the case for such a Measure and, while he cannot say that it would be without controversy, he hopes that the negotiations which have taken place will result in substantial agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (GUNNER'S DISCHARGE).

Mr. MAXTON: 29.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what are the circumstances in the case of the dismissal of Private W. H. Walker from the Territorial Army, which deprive him of the right of appeal to the Army Council, provided in Clause 9, Sub-section (4), of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The circumstances are that Gunner Walker was not discharged under the Section quoted. I may add, nevertheless, that if he wishes to make any repre-
sentations regarding his discharge, they will be considered.

Mr. MAXTON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, which is further than he has gone before in this matter. When I asked him a question earlier, he referred me to King's Regulations, to a particular King's Regulation. I looked up the Regulation which refers me to the Territorial Forces Act, and the particular Section, which I have here, lays it down that the man must have a right of appeal to the Army Council.

Mr. HACKING: I referred the hon. Member, at least I intended to refer him, to the Territorial Army Regulations, paragraph 199 (6 a).

Mr. MAXTON: That is what I am referring to. I am not referring to any other Regulations. I did not suppose that it was Navy Regulations.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss the question now.

Mr. MAXTON: I just want to ask a question. Why does the right hon. Gentleman refer me to the Territorial Regulations, as he has done again to-day, which are governed by Section 9 of the Territorial Forces Act, which gives an appeal to the Army Council? And why does he tell me that this man has no appeal?

Mr. HACKING: If the hon. Member will look at Section 9, Sub-section (4) of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, he will see that if a man is summarily discharged by his commanding officer there is a right of appeal. This man was not summarily discharged by his commanding officer.

Mr. MAXTON: I will argue the matter out later on.

RULES OF PROCEDURE (SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Major MILNER): 27.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is the practice of the War Office to demand the return to that Department of any summary of evidence given to an accused person under Rule 14B of the Rules of Procedure, 1928; and on what authority this course is adopted?

Mr. HACKING: It is not the general practice of the War Office to request the
return of the summary of evidence given to an accused person under Rule 14B of the Rules of Procedure. If such a request is made, it is made on the authority of the Army Council in the public interest.

CIVIL OFFENCES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Major MILNER): 28.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will state in whose hands the decision rests as to whether a person subject to military law shall be tried by a civil or a military court; on what principle such a decision is made; and how many persons subject to military law have been tried by court martial in the five years preceding the latest convenient date?

Mr. HACKING: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to a per son subject to military law who appears before a military authority charged with a civil offence which is also triable by court-martial. In such a case the civil authorities may intimate a desire to bring the case before a civil court and in that case it is tried by a civil court. If they do not so intimate, the decision as to whether the trial shall be by court-martial rests with the competent military authority. As a general rule, in places where regular civil courts are at hand, it is desirable to try a civil offence by a civil court if the offence is one which relates to the property or person of a civilian. On the other hand, in a number of cases persons subject to military law are in practice handed over by the civil authorities to be dealt with under the Army Act. During the last five years trials by court-martial for civil offences have averaged 54 a year at home and 64 a year abroad.

SOLDIER'S DEATH.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE): 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can give the House any information in regard to the case of Private P. L. Lines, aged 16, of the training battalion, Royal Army Service Corps, Clayton Barracks, Alder shot, who was found hanged at the St. Andrew's soldiers' hostel; and how it was that a youth of 16 was a soldier in the British Army, and the reason for his death?

Mr. HACKING: As the inquest on this young soldier is to be held to-day, I
am afraid that I am not yet in a position to make a full statement on the case. When the full facts are known I will, with the hon. Member's permission, communicate with him by letter. As regards Private Lines' age, he declared on attestation that he was 18.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the War Office no means of ascertaining whether the statement made by such a juvenile was correct or otherwise, and does the War Office take any steps to make sure?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. This subject has been discussed almost every year on the Army (Annual) Bill, and the reasons are given then. One of the chief reasons is that, if we had to insist on a birth certificate on every occasion, it might prevent certain young persons from having a second chance in life.

Mr. PIKE: Do the trade unions take any trouble to ascertain the correctness of the declared age of new members joining various branches?

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (SPECIAL CONSTABLES).

Mr. McENTEE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what allowances were made to the special con stables that were on duty in the Metropolitan area on the 6th May, and the cost?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The only allowance made was by way of refreshment for those on duty for long periods. In the Metropolitan district a cash allowance was paid where claimed; in the City of London where many special constables did night duty food was provided. The total cost is expected to be about £20.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARREST, MARYLEBONE.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Edwin Todd, of Hampstead Road, was arrested by plain-clothes police in Marylebone Lane, on Monday, 6th May, and charged with being a suspected person and attempting to pick pockets; that he had his measurements and finger-prints taken at Marylebone police station; that he appeared before Mr. Snell at Marylebone police court, and was discharged;
that he is 50 years of age and a workman of good character; and that he lost one and a half days' wages as a consequence of his wrongful arrest; whether it is pro posed to compensate him for his loss of wages and wrongful detention; and whether his finger-print record will be destroyed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made inquiries and am satisfied that the police officers concerned in no way exceeded their duty in arresting Mr. Todd, and bringing him before the court. The fact that a charge has been dismissed by a magistrate does not in itself afford ground for any claim for compensation, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter. In accordance with the usual practice, Mr. Todd's finger-prints were destroyed, after the case was disposed of.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has been a. member of his trade union for 28 years, is widely known in the industry, and that everybody who knows him has the highest regard and respect for his character. Why should he be taken away and lose a day and a half's pay because someone commits a blunder and then get no compensation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think there is any question of his losing a day and a half's pay. He was taken at nine o'clock in the evening and his case was heard by the court the next morning.

Mr. McENTEE: His firm, one of the best in the country, had agreed to pay half wages for Jubilee day, provided the men were at work the next morning. Consequently, when he was arrested he was unable to get to work and lost a day and a half's pay.

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member can give me fresh information, I shall be glad to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT: SPEED LIMIT (PROSECUTIONS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 33.
asked the Home Secretary what proportion of the proceedings against motorists for exceeding the 30-miles-per-hour speed-limit which have been instituted in the Metropolitan area for the month of April, have been taken in respect of motorists who were unaccompanied by passengers
and therefore not in a position to pro vide rebutting evidence?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This information is not available and I know of no foundation for the implication in the question.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Metropolitan area there were 700 of these cases, and that over 90 per cent. were those of single drivers?

Sir W. BRASS: Surely this information is obtainable at the Home Office?

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a matter which should be examined?

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to advise all motorists that if they are likely to exceed the 30-miles limit they should always have a passenger with them.

Mr. MAGNAY: Since when have passengers become automatic speedometers?

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: What protection has the single driver of a motor car against conviction in these circum stances?

Sir J. GILMOUR: A driver is convicted upon evidence. A single driver must obey the law as well as other drivers.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Are not these very overwhelming and sinister figures? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look into them?

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS DUTIES (FOODSTUFFS AND PLAYING CARDS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of dozen packs of playing cards assessed to customs duty during the month of April, 1935?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The number of packs of playing cards assessed to Customs Duty during the month of April, 1935, was 27 dozen.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 38.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the approximate amount of Customs duties collected on foodstuffs in 1931 and in 1934?

Mr. COOPER: The approximate amounts of Customs duties collected on foodstuffs in the calendar years 1931 and 1934 were £14,460,000 and £32,590,000, respectively. The figure for 1934 includes feeding stuffs for animals, which cannot be separately distinguished.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (PUBLICATION).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Major MILNER): 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a book written by the Prime Minister en titled The Awakening of India has been proscribed in India; whether he can state the reason for this action on the part of the Government of India; and what steps it is proposed to take in regard thereto?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The book has never been proscribed in India.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the book on sale and available in all parts of the country?

Sir S. HOARE: It has never been proscribed.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has a supplement been written to the hook entitled "The Labour Party are not yet awake"?

Mr. McENTEE: Has the book ever been read by anyone in India?

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHREIN.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any particulars regarding the in juries and loss of life suffered by a number of women and children at Bahrein, in the Persian Gulf, on 14th April; and, seeing that the indirect cause of the trouble was the poverty of the population, will he say whether any steps are being taken to establish better economic conditions in the island?

Sir S. HOARE: I am sending the hon. Member a summary of the report received on this incident, which was the consequence of a panic in a crowded passage-way at a distribution of alms by a local merchant and a full account of which appeared in the Press at the time. Economic conditions in Bahrein have been adversely affected by the falling off
in the pearl trade, but I cannot accept the suggestion in the latter part of the hon. Member's question that this un fortunate incident is the result of them.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is this not the last of a number of such cases in the past few years, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to ensure the safety of these people when they assemble for that purpose?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member seems to forget that Bahrein is an independent State. I can give him information on the subject, but we have no right to intervene in the matter.

Mr. LOGAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government of Bahrein on the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: If the hon. Member can get the price of pearls put up, I am sure every one in the Persian Gulf will be very thankful to him.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of pearls is very much put up, and that even the synthetic pearl has not put them off the market? I would not mind discussing pearls with the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir S. HOARE: I shall be very glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's offer.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEWISHAM FIRM (WAGE ARREARS).

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE): 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information in regard to the Lewisham firm of card board-box manufacturers who are accused of supplying false information to one of the Ministry of Labour's inspectors relative to arrears of wages paid and the production of false wages records; whether he can state the amount of arrears owing to a number of employés; whether he is aware that two girls working for the firm were instantly dismissed after giving evidence before the Ministry of Labour's inspector and for not agreeing to accept less than the total amount of arrears owing to them; and what action he proposes to take in regard to the girls' dismissal?

Mr. HUDSON: There was no dispute as to the amount of the arrears, totalling about £118, due in this case. A charge was preferred against the
firm's manager of producing false records and giving false information relating to payment of these arrears, and after a full hearing it was dismissed by the court on the ground that the charges had not been made out. Of the two girls who were summarily dismissed, one has found other employment and it is expected that the other will do so shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBSIDIES AND QUOTAS.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON (for Mr. ALED ROBERTS): 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what has been the expenditure up to the present time in the subsidies to beef, milk, and tramp shipping, and the amount of quota payment distributed under the Wheat Act, 1932; and whether he will state in each case from when these payments date?

Mr. COOPER: As the answer involves a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Item.
Expenditure to date.
Commencing date.



£



Beef Subsidy payments.
2,464,000
1st September, 1934.


Milk Subsidy payments.
1,556,200
Payments under Sections 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Milk Act, 1934–1st April, 1934; under Sections 9 and 11 at varying dates in 1934.


Tramp Shipping Subsidy payments.
No payments yet made.


Wheat Quota payments.
15,995,014
1st August, 1932.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY CONTRACTORS, HUDDERSFIELD (WAGES).

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE): 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Messrs. L. B. Holliday and Company, of Huddersfield, chemical manufacturers, are contractors to the Admiralty, and that they are paying 1d. per hour less than the rates agreed to by the National Joint Industrial Council
for the chemical industry in October last, of which council the firm in question was a member; if he is aware that other chemical manufacturers in the same district are paying the full rates agreed upon; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The first intimation received of this complaint was given in the hon. Member's question addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 14th May. As definite particulars are now given, the complaint will be investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).

Mr. MARTIN (for Miss CAZALET): 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the examination into the question of the raising of the school-leaving age has yet been completed by his Department; and when he is likely to be able to make a statement on this matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The examination into the question of the raising of the school-leaving age is still proceeding, and I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to say when it will be possible to make a statement.

Mr. MARTIN: Has my hon. Friend seen the statement in the Press to-day that a decision has been taken?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Yes, and it is quite inaccurate.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Department

has been considering this problem for over a year? How much longer will this inquiry be proceeding before the Department is able to come to some conclusion one way or the other?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: It is an exceedingly complicated matter and must take some time to settle.

Mr. PIKE: Will title Minister bear in mind, in coming to a decision, the grave shortage of juvenile labour in industrial areas?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. LANSBURY: Would the Prime Minister state what is the business for Friday, and also what business he in tends to take to-night if the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is carried?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): On Friday, we shall take the Committee and concluding stages of the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill; Motions to approve the Herring Industry Scheme and the Highway Code; and, if there is time, other Orders on the Paper. As regards the Government's intentions to-night, we are moving the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to complete the Report stage of the Housing Bill, so that the additional day which is to be given to the Bill can be devoted to a Debate on the Third Reading.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 34.

Division No. 204.]
AYES.
[3.18 p.m.


Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Clarke, Frank


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Conant, R. J. E


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooke, Douglas


Anstruther-Gray, W. J
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Cooper, A. Duff


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Butler, Richard Austen
Cross, R. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Davison, Sir William Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M
Carver, Major William H
Doran, Edward


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Castlereagh, Viscount
Drewe, Cedric


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S
Duckworth, George A. V.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Duggan, Hubert John


Bernays, Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Blindell, James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Bossom, A. C.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Boulton, W. W.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Mabane, William
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndraw, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Salt, Edward W.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Savery, Servington


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McKeag, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus {C'mb'rl'd. N.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Granville, Edgar
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McLean. Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Grigg, Sir Edward
Magnay, Thomas
Soper, Richard


Grimston, R. V.
Maitland, Adam
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hales, Harold K.
Martin, Thomas B.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Stones, James


Hanbury, Cecil
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Storey, Samuel


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Strauss, Edward A.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Haneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morgan, Robert H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morris-Jones, Or. J. H. (Denbigh)
Summersby, Charles H.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Munro, Patrick
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Howitt. Dr. Alfred B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Orr Ewing, I. L
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hurd, Sir Percy
Palmar, Francis Noel
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Patrick, Colin M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peake, Osbert
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Jackson, J. C. {Heywood & Radcliffe)
Petherick, M
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Ker, J. Campbell
Pike, Cecil F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Leckie, J. A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Lewis, Oswald
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Liddall, Walter S.
Remer, John R.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)



Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Ropner, Colonel L
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy. Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton. Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwan)


Cleary, J. J.
Harris, Sir Percy
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

COUNTERFEIT CURRENCY (CONVENTION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) further considered

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for non-provided schools.)

The Minister in approving schemes for slum clearance under the Housing Act of 1930, or any other Act, shall not include the buildings of a non-provided school.—[Mr. Bailey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The specific object of the new Clause is that no clearance order made under the 1930 Act or any other Measure should include the buildings of a non-provided school. I should not be in order if I were to attempt on this occasion to develop the obvious corollary to this proposal, namely, that in the arrangements for the re-housing of the population, pro vision should be made by the Minister for the erection of new schools. I do not pro pose to say any more on that aspect of the question. As I say, it would not be in order now to press that point, although it is one about which many of us feel very strongly—more strongly perhaps than we do about the new Clause which is actually on the Paper. We feel, however, that it would be something if the Minister could see his way to give us some concession on the basis of the proposal in the new Clause, namely, that there should be no demolition. When the Minister replies I hope he will make clear the attitude of the Government on this matter and that he will also bear in mind that it is not merely this proposed new Clause to which he is replying. It represents the only way in which we can raise the question in Parliamentary form on this occasion but it deals only with a part of a. subject about which the deepest concern is felt by many persons in the country. I ask him therefore to indicate if he can to some extent the Government's general attitude to the position.
We have introduced this Clause because some of us are rather afraid that the Bill may aggravate a position which is already by no means satisfactory. I think these few observations indicate clearly both my
own feelings and those of my hon. Friends on this matter but I hope the Minister will not mistake the shortness of my observations for any lack of very deep concern on, the subject on the part of those of us who are interested in it. This is a matter which we regard as of prime importance. It is a matter which touches very deep principles which some of us hold, and therefore I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to indicate that our feelings will not be violated in this Bill.

3.32 p.m.

Colonel BROADBENT: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so on account of the deep interest taken in the schools by the people of the North of England, particularly in the densely populated area in and around Manchester. In these schools we get religious education, and as probably at the present time religious education is not so popular as it was some years ago, I should regret anything being done to pre vent this education being given in our schools. If any evidence is required of the interest taken in these schools, and in the Sunday schools, in the North of England, I would refer hon. Members to what will take place three weeks to-day in the city of Mancester, where thousands and thousands of children will rally under their respective Sunday-school banners and walk in procession through the streets. I welcome this procession be cause an effort is being made by this means to provide children with much needed clothing.
I understand that in the provided schools the Board of Education have paid something like five-sevenths or six-sevenths of the expense of maintenance, and the remainder is found by the people of the denominations which originally built the schools, and it would be a great pity if these schools were to be included in any demolition order. I therefore appeal to the Minister to see if he cannot do something in connection with this matter. May I suggest that where a clearance is made and a Sunday school is left high and dry, without any population round about it, it would be very hard lines, and indeed impossible, for people to build new schools without the assistance of the Government, and as these schools are used for five days out of seven for secular purposes, I feel that it would be economy on the part of the Government
if they could be assisted. I think it would be asking too much for the Government to rebuild them, but some measure might be devised, even a generous measure, which would preserve these schools from falling into disuse. I put this suggestion forward to the Minister, hoping that he will see his way to make some proposal in regard to this matter.

3.36 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am very pleased that the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause have mentioned this matter, but I hardly think it is possible for the Minister to deal with it in the manner proposed. I am fully aware, with regard to the congested areas of great cities where demolition may take place, how essential it may be that from the point of view of non-provided schools assistance should be given to those receiving religious education, and I am aware also, as to the possibilities of going elsewhere, of the trouble that that may be to many local authorities. I feel that the two hon. Members who have spoken must be complimented on bringing in a Clause on a subject which is causing so much trouble to those interested in church schools, but when I look round at the various areas that are being cleared, the problem that arises in my mind is not so much that of keeping a particular non-provided school in a particular area, but of the opportunity that there may be of the whole of the environment being changed and the people having a chance of getting schooling away from the neighbourhood which has been demolished. If the people have to go, certainly a difficulty arises with regard to the responsibility and cost that must fall upon the governors of these schools.
Is it possible for the Minister to envisage, when people have to leave a neighbourhood and remove three or four miles away, so that a particular school is no longer required in the neighbourhood, the question of rebuilding and rehousing under better conditions for school life? I should imagine that it would be possible, when church school managers, in consultation with the Ministry of Education, find that it is no longer essential that a particular church school should remain in an area that has been demolished, that arrangements might be made for the responsibility of rebuilding
in a new area to be one of the functions of the Ministry in arranging its housing proposals. I am going, not into the problem of the schools, but only into the question of housing, and if the Minister would look at that aspect of it, I think my two hon. Friends would be able to say that they had achieved something. So far as school managers are concerned, this is a problem that is hitting them very heavily, and if the Minister would give this matter some consideration, I am sure it would give much satisfaction.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: I would like to ask the Minister what is the practice at the present time with regard to non-provided schools which fall within a scheduled area. That would help us, I think, to see a good deal better where we stand. I suppose that there would be some form of compensation granted by agreement with the local authority, but there does not seem to be any general practice in the matter. In one of my areas there is a considerable institution, which is not exactly a church school but is a combination of welfare, mission, creche and a few other things. It falls right within the area of a clearance scheme, but some arrangements have been made with the local authority which will enable it to be carried on. I do not know what those arrangements are, and that is why I ask if any guidance is given from the Minis try in such cases. The non-provided schools are in a difficult position. A clearance scheme not only removes the scholars but, far worse from the point of view of keeping the school going, it re moves the church communicants who paid for it when it was built and who must look after the building outside the ordinary wear and tear clause. Many people actually live in slums solely in order to allow their children to attend a school of a particular religion which is their own. That may seem rather strange, but it is true. Therefore, if the school re mains within a clearance area these people will have to go back to the school and the church if they are to be carried on as they have been in the past.
The whole subject is such a highly important one, particularly in Lancashire, that we would be very obliged to the Minister if he could tell us what the position of these schools is under clearance schemes. I have spent a good deal of
time with the different churches and schools, but I have not yet discovered any regular practice to guide me. In consequence, I have made one or two mistakes in adopting a course which I should not have adopted if I had known more about it. I have gone to one authority after another, to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and the City Council, but I have not yet been able to ascertain what is the regular practice. I feel that the proposed Clause is hardly sufficient to convey to hon. Members the importance of the subject. Its narrow ness would preclude us from dealing with the whole question in the way in which we would like to deal with it. In Manchester there are many churches and schools which are deeply concerned, and some sympathetic reference by the Minister would be received in that part of the world with a great deal of joy.

3.44 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I support the object of this new Clause. I can only conceive of two reasons why a school of this description should be included in a clearance area. The first is that the building is not in an adequate condition for the proper housing of the children, and the other is that it is a bad neighbour inasmuch as it would be impossible to develop the area as it should be developed if the school remained. With regard to the first reason, nobody is more desirous than I am that the children should be housed in a proper manner, and the object of the school authorities is to see that the schools are in such a condition and so constructed that the children are able to benefit in health as well as in other ways when they are attending school. That, however, is the function of the local authority as an education authority and not as a housing authority. Consequently, the question of the condition of schools is adequately safeguarded by the powers which are held by the local authorities. With regard to the question of a school being a bad neighbour, I support the new Clause because' one of the greatest difficulties which local authorities have is to provide a site for a school within reason able distance of the housing accommodation which they give. Consequently, if a school is already in a clearance area it should not be demolished and taken away without some provision being made for an alternative site for a school. As worded, the new Clause may not be such
as the Minister can accept, but, if the principle were accepted, he would be able to provide suitable wording in order to carry out the object which many of us have in supporting it.

3.46 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: The speeches we have heard have had very little relation to the new Clause. Its effect would be exactly the opposite from that which hon. Members have in moving it, and it would be against the interests of denominational schools. It would mean in many cases that schools would be left high and dry and isolated and without any child population. There would be no compensation and more harm than good would be done to the denominations concerned. In some cases, too, it would spoil the unity and the form of the remodelling of the area. I would remind hon. Members that if a denominational school were in the way the local authority would have to buy it out on its market value, because it would not come within the definition of a house. Hon. Members who support this Clause would not earn the gratitude of the de nominations concerned if they were successful in carrying it.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I do not doubt that the hon. baronet is right when he says that this Clause is unnecessary and possibly undesirable in itself. I do not think that is the spirit in which it was put on the Paper. What we really want is an assurance from the Minister that nothing can be done under this Bill, with all its great aims and intentions, to add to the difficulties of non-provided schools. If that assurance is given, I have no doubt that the proposed Clause will not be pressed. There is great anxiety in the North about the position of the non-provided schools under slum clearance, clearance areas, re-development areas, and so on, and a comforting word from the Minister would be of great value to them.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: I have great pleasure in supporting this new Clause, not that I have the slightest hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it in its present form, because I am inclined to agree with the hon. Baronet for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that in its present form it might do the cause of the hon.
Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) more harm than good. Nevertheless, he has undoubtedly done a great deal of good by raising this topic here, because through out the North, and particularly in Lancashire, there is a great deal of fear, perhaps groundless, that injury may result to non-provided schools. I think that fear has arisen in these circumstances. Clearance orders have been passed in respect of certain areas in which there is a non-provided school. Examination by independent architects and surveyors has shown the school to be of such durability that it has at least 25 or 30 years more life in it. If the clearance order were carried out, that non-provided school, which has been provided to a great extent at the cost of the religious denomination which supports it, would be lost. The supporters of that denomination would then have to follow that population to wherever it was moved and erect another non-provided school because in the industrial areas of the North of England people who are keen on non-provided schools have the greatest reluctance to send their children to a provided school. There is that feeling; whether it is wise or not I am not going to say, but it exists; and we ought, as far as possible, to meet the wishes of people who have so nobly provided these so-called non-provided schools.
But I do not agree with the hon. Baronet when he says that the school might be left high and dry by the clearance order, because I think this suggested new Clause refers to areas where it is the intention of the Minister of Health to rehouse the people on the site. If that is the intention—and it is so, I have been led to believe, as regards sites cleared in Manchester—and the non-provided school were left there, when the population was rehoused on the site the school would again be in demand and there would be no need to build another one. I do not go so far as the hon. Member for Gorton in saying there ought to be no demolition order at all, because I agree that in some cases which I have seen myself the schools are beyond repair. I am referring, however, to schools which have a certain number of years of ser vice left, and if there is such a school in a clearance area where the Minister intends to rehouse the people on the site I think a case has been made out for
that school to be retained. We are not allowed by the ruling of the Chair to touch on the financial aspect of the question, but if the Minister could give some reassurance on the points raised it would go a long way towards allaying the fears which do exist in the North?

3.53 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I should like to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member opposite with a practical illustration drawn from just outside my own division. A few months ago the Minister made an exhaustive tour of the housing estates of Sheffield, which I admit are a credit to the authorities, and perhaps he will re member a large estate known as Wood thorpe, rehousing more than 3,000 people who had been moved from the over crowded centres of the city of Sheffield. For almost two and a half years the children of that new estate have received their religious teaching through the action of certain mothers in taking classes of half a dozen or a dozen children once or twice on Sundays, because there was no school within easy reach of the estate. As soon as the corporation authorities got to know about it, and following a disastrous accident at Liverpool, they banned any such teaching in corporation houses, and there being no alternative accommodation the vast majority of the children are absolutely denied religious teaching—there is neither provided nor non-provided Sunday school. Under demolition orders there is a danger of a repetition of that state of affairs, and I do not think the House or the Minister would desire that it should happen any where. I am inclined to agree that there is a possibility of a non-provided school which is left becoming high and dry, as explained by the hon. Baronet; but there is the other side of the question, the danger, if a school is displaced under a demolition order, of there being no school whatever, and it is the business of the House to see that facilities are provided in any rehousing scheme for such form of teaching as parents desire their children to have. The industrial areas would give a unanimous verdict in favour of the principle embodied in this new Clause. If the wording is not suitable the Minister could alter it to suit the convenience of those areas which are most desirous of obtaining this concession, and it
would also be in the interests of the spiritual well-being of the country as a whole.

3.56 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I think the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) and the hon. and gallant Member for Ashton-under Lyne (Colonel Broadbent) have raised a subject which it was very desirable to consider on this Bill, and one on which the House is entitled to have a statement showing the general attitude of the Government towards the matters raised. It is clear from the discussion, which has been a- most illuminating one, that there are two points with which I have to deal, the first concerning the actual wording of the Amendment and the second the wider aspects of policy. As to the wording of the Amendment, I think I can set at rest the apprehension expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Chorlton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), because it is a fact that the Amendment would not do anything to the existing law. It is the fact, and I would particularly direct the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone to this point, that under the law as it will be when this Bill is passed it will be impossible to include a school in a clearance order so that it could be expropriated on site value terms. That is secured by Clause 60 of the present Bill, which rules out the bad neighbour from the site value basis of compensation.
The Amendment, however, goes a little farther, and would prevent non-provided schools being expropriated even on the market value basis of compensation. I think that would be a mistake, both from the point of view of the general position and the point of view of the schools. The situation was clearly analysed, and I followed it with appreciation, by the hon. and learned Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming). The situation would be this: either the population moves away, or it does not move away, but is rehoused on the existing site. If the population moves away, clearly it is in the interests of the managers and others concerned with the school that it should be bought out, because then they would have the purchase price to help towards rebuilding on a fresh site. It would be a great mistake if the law were to prevent them
from being expropriated on a market value basis of compensation. In the other case, where the population is not going away, but is to be rehoused on the existing site, what is most in the interest of the school is that it should be left alone, allowed to remain there without interference.
This second case brings me to what I have to say in reply to my hon. Friends on the general aspects of this question. Let me make it as clear as I can that I am perfectly in agreement with my hon. Friends on the difficulties which confront managers and others interested in non-provided schools When there is a shifting of population which may make their school of comparatively little local value, while, at the same time, there has grown up elsewhere a corresponding need for similar schools. It is a most difficult situation, which needs, and deserves, the sympathy and consideration of His Majesty's Government. The situation is, of course, one which may occur under the Act of 1930, before the coming into operation of the present Measure, and undoubtedly under the operations of the two Acts those conditions will occur in some cases. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the difficulty is the expense of providing new schools. Now we begin to see the way towards a practical solution of the difficulties, in which the Government can help. Let us preserve, as we have preserved under existing legislation, the power, and indeed the obligation, of the local authority, if they desire to move a school out of its present place, to pay for it at the full market value, so that, in the event of the population shifting and changing, those interested in the school will have the price to assist them in providing a new school.
Let us recognise, as a supplement, in order to assist those responsible for non-provided schools, that the way in which the Government can assist in the matter is when the population is not to be shifted away, but remains on the site, that it shall be most careful and sympathetic in its administration in order to protect the school against any unnecessary interference. I believe that when we have those two practical points before us, and when, as I hope, I have convinced my hon. Friends that it is not only right but necessary and within our intention that we should assist non-provided schools
in this respect, we shall really have given in the most practical manner those assurances which my hon. Friends can rightly expect to hear from the Government on this occasion. I would sum up, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley), by saying that I accept, as it were, the very phraseology of his own invitation as being very well calculated to express what is the Government's intention in the administration of this matter, and that we shall do nothing to add to the difficulties of non-provided schools by our administration under the Act.

4.4 p.m.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend has made a most sym pathetic reply, of which I hope I may infer from the cheers those who have taken the initiative in this matter are fully appreciative. There are, of course, as my right hon. Friend says, two quite distinct problems. There is the problem of the population which is moved, and which needs a school near. There, I agree with my right hon. Friend, and, I think, other hon. Members who have spoken, that it is to the interest of the school to be expropriated and to follow the population which it serves. But, I think I am more personally or immediately interested in the case of areas which, though they may be cleared and rebuilt, will still house a population who have been accustomed to use, and still desire to use, the non-provided school. There are not a great many of them in my constituency, but those who are associated with them cling to them with traditions of great affection, and with a sense of obtaining there something of the highest value to man which they feel they do not obtain in the council school.
The case that I want to put to my right hon. Friend is this: An area which is to be replanned and rebuilt, but still to house, perhaps not as large a population, but as much at it can of the old population who are attached to the district by ties, or who are bound to the district by the conditions of their work. What exactly does my right hon. Friend mean by the "most sympathetic administration" of the case of those schools? I venture to think he might go a little further, because if you have a school in one of those areas destroyed as part of
a replanning scheme, is it not almost certain that it will be unable to obtain an alternative site within that area at any price which renders construction of a substitute school possible? I think my right hon. Friend means that in a case of that kind he will take care that the school shall not be included in the order. If that be so, I have nothing more to say, and if he can tell me that I am right in interpreting his mind, shall be perfectly happy. If he is not prepared to go as far as that, perhaps he can say one word more as to what he means by "sympathetic administration" in a case where the district will remain with much of the old population, perhaps the whole of the old population, if buildings are raised higher and the ground plan is re-made, or, at any rate, with as much of the old population as possible, and where the old need for the school, and the desire for it, will remain. Will he say how he means to treat that case, and to secure that the school shall be able to continue its existence?

4.8 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: Before replying, will the Minister take into consideration also the point of view of the school where there is rehousing in the matter of tenement dwellings? The right hon. Gentleman is aware that from the city of Liverpool many thousands of people have gone to the outer areas, but the fact remains that inside the city the problem of the re housing of people still remains, and the question of the schools is still a problem. I would like to know, with regard to these cleared areas, where the school forms a part, what view the Minister takes in regard to the school on the site already cleared, but on which the population can again be rehoused?

4.10 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: My right hon. Friend put to me a question in a form to which, if I understand it, my answer can be unhesitatingly yes. We are dealing here with the position of the non-provided school in an area which is to be rebuilt, and it is therefore in the interest of the school that it shall remain undisturbed on the existing site. As to that, when I say "sympathetic administration," what I mean is that we should look upon it with the strongest possible presumption that in that case the school should not be disturbed. But my right hon. Friend will
understand that I must protect myself and my successors. It would not be possible for me to give a promise in the House to-day, on behalf of myself or my successors, that in no single case, however absolutely pre-eminent the need for re-adjustment of lay-out and so on in a particular area, should a non-provided school ever be included in a compulsory purchase order. What I can and do say, after listening to the Debate, is that I am confident it would be the desire not only of the present, but of any, Government which administers the Act, that we should look upon it with the strongest possible presumption in favour of leaving the non-provided school in those conditions undisturbed.

Mr. BAILEY: In view of the very sympathetic attitude of the Minister, and appreciating the fact that it is far more important that the Act should be interpreted in that spirit than in any paricular Clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, with drawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Definition of overcrowding.)

4.12 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after "time," to insert:
if any person sleeping in the house must sleep in other than a bedroom or.
I hope that this Amendment will receive the same sympathetic reception that was given to the Clause just withdrawn. My hon. Friends and I regard this Amendment as one of the utmost importance. On the Second Reading of the Bill I drew attention to this problem, and, if I may, I would like to refer to the words which I then used:
The right hon. Gentleman is now leading his crusade against overcrowding…He has established standards of over crowding. It is a very bold man who will put standards into black and white. I am not nearly so cautious as the right hon. Gentleman, but I should be a little wary about establishing standards of overcrowding, because the public will get it into their minds that people who are living under conditions slightly better than the First Schedule of the Bill lays down are not overcrowded. That would be a monstrous thing for the people of this country to believe. I think it is clear that the standards of the right hon. Gentleman are much too low….There may be difficulties in dealing with this problem, and I think it is bound to take time, but
the right hon. Gentleman's standards as regards overcrowding are not standards which are tolerable in the twentieth century. He contemplates as a normal thing that living rooms should be used as bedrooms. I can never agree to that. I think it is wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1935; col. 389, Vol. 297.]
I return to this question on the Report stage, because it is of fundamental importance to this House now to rectify what I regard as one of the weaknesses of the Bill. I do not want to be unduly controversial on this Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman has not been quite consistent. He has admitted, or is going to admit presently, that it is most desirable that for the dwellings built under this Bill, when it becomes law, a bath room should be provided, but on Friday we used what sweet reasonableness we could command to ask him to establish more general standards with regard to the specifications and amenities to be provided under the various Clauses of the Bill. In his wisdom, he refused to accept our Amendment, although I am quite satisfied that hon. Members on all sides of the House would have been prepared, had the Minister given them encouragement, to have supported us in accepting our Amendment. I do hope that the House will be prepared to accept at least this standard.
The right hon. Gentleman is going to establish, for the first time, a legal standard in an Act of Parliament dealing with housing. You can do that with regard to the minimum and the maximum size of house on which you are prepared to expend Exchequer money, but nobody has been able to define in specific terms exactly what is a slum. We have approached nearer and nearer to a definition as time has passed. The Act of 1930 tightened up a little further the definition of a slum, but it is still very difficult to define a slum in precise legal terms. There is a danger, because, once you have done it, if the standard of housing is just a little bit over the standard of that definition, the public conscience is salved and people feel happy. That is also the danger of putting into the Bill a specific standard in regard to over crowding; either it is too low or it is too high. It may be too high for immediate application. Those who have had to deal with these problems know that it is not always possible to attain in the first
month or in the first year or two the standard one would like.
I know the case against accepting our Amendment. It is a simple Amendment to make it clear that we do not regard it as normal for people to sleep year by year in living rooms. I have heard an hon. Member say that he lived in a bed-sitting room when this House was in Session. I could live in a bed-sitting room, and so could all of us. The hon. Member who says that does not live in a bed-sitting room with a number of other people who are using the room as a living room for 52 weeks in the year. He uses it on four days a week, when the House is sitting. I am not complaining about that, because it is quite reasonable. We were told that there would be difficulty if people visited houses during week-ends. Sometimes when I am speaking during the week-end, the only way I can be accommodated with my comrades is with a bed in a sitting room. I am not complaining about that, because that is an accidental occasion. I am not complaining if a mother-in-law comes to spend a week with her son-in-law or daughter-in-law and has to sleep in the sitting room or in the living room. Those things are not normal.
The only other argument that has been adduced against the Amendment is that, in the largest cities, and particularly in London, the idea—I do not want to use the word "ideal"—and the standard could not be immediately applied. That is probably true. I give my friends on the London County Council credit for grappling with the problem in the hope of solving it in a satisfactory manner. If certain areas are not able to live up to a standard for the time being, that is no reason why we should anchor the whole country to a lower standard. The position could be satisfactorily dealt with by dispensation, or by power given to the Minister for a limited period of time to waive the restriction in regard to persons sleeping in living rooms. That would be a complete answer to the case against the Amendment.
The case for the Amendment is much stronger. I have dealt with the difficulty of establishing a legal standard. The further difficulty is that, unless we insist now that people shall not be required, in ordinary circumstances, to sleep in
living rooms, we shall be heading for the creation of new slums. Moreover, we shall saddle the community, during the next 10 or 20 years, with a very large number of houses—I am taking into account the decline in the birth-rate—which will be too small, according to the standards of 20 years hence. Once built, these houses and tenements will have to accommodate two generations of our citizens, and, if we build an enormous number of houses of so small a size that it becomes normal for people to have to sleep in living rooms, the community will be saddled with dwelling-houses which the public conscience 10 years hence will regard as a disgrace. If we have to break two houses into one or make two flats into one, the community will be faced with a charge which will lie at the door of this Government, unless the Government have sufficient wisdom to see the danger in the course upon which they are embarked.
There is another argument. Once you establish a standard in an Act of Parliament, even though it be a minimum standard, it tends to become the normal, if not the maximum. My hon. Friends on this side of the House have always been opposed, especially during the last 25 or 30 years, to putting minimum figures of wages into an Act of Parliament. They know that the figures tend to become the general standard. It is dangerous to say that people are not overcrowded if they can sleep in living rooms in small dwelling-houses. The effect of that new sanction from Parliament, never given before in an Act of Parliament, would be to establish standards which might be followed by private builders or, I am grieved to say, by a number of corporations. We may find the more parsimonious, or the more hard-pressed, local authorities saying that a house is not overcrowded if built down to the scale set out in the Act of 1935. The result of the new standard may well be that, after a 17-year period of steady improvement in housing standards in this country, there will be a degradation of the general standards of house building. On those grounds, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment, which we regard as eminently reasonable.
Hon. Members who have never had to live under conditions such as those of people who are now overcrowded, may think that it is rather fun to sleep in a
sitting room one night a week, and rather amusing to sleep in a very large bed-sitting room for four nights a week. We are not dealing with circumstances of that kind, but with working people, and with a type of house in which there is only one living room, and not even a parlour, and where the whole of the domestic life of the family is lived; where tae cooking is done, a good deal of the washing and ironing are done, the feeding is done and the family conversation is carried on; where father sits and smokes his pipe and mother does her knitting; where children play around the hearth in almost all circumstances, in a relatively small room where people have been living all day. After the hour when everybody else decides to go to bed, some unfortunate person has to sleep in the fetid atmosphere, probably tobacco smoke laden from father's navy cut. That may be a growing person or a young child, a student in a secondary school or any other member of the family, who can never go to bed until all the household has retired. That is an intolerable state of affairs. It is not a matter of mere sentiment, but one which affects the health, vitality and standards of morality of the people. The right hon. Gentleman may tell me of cases where that will have to continue for a time; I am not unreasonable, I can understand that, but to put, as specific terms in an Act of Parliament, standards which commit this House to regarding conditions of that kind as normal will be wrong, and the House will be ashamed of doing so.
We have had our differences on the Bill. There have been occasions in Committee when my hon. Friends and I have supported the Minister, and even on Report stage when we have not opposed him. There have also been a number of occasions when we have been bound to oppose him. In this case, I believe hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree that the Minister would be well advised to accept the Amendment, because he is opening a new chapter in the establishment of standards of overcrowding. I would beg hon. Members who understand housing conditions in their areas to have regard to the fact that in my native county, and in the adjoining county, it is regarded as a disgrace for any member of the family to have to sleep in a living room. In York shire and Lancashire, nobody ever sleeps
in a living room or a sitting room except in case of grave illness or of visitors staying for a short time. People in the north of England will regard this new standard as objectionable, and rightly so. I should be sorry if we accepted it as the ordinary standard, and I hope that hon. Members will support us and thereby do something to save the House of Commons from great discredit.

4.30 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: This matter is really the keystone of the Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill, the whole justification for its introduction, is to deal with overcrowding, and I think that anyone who has given any attention to the problem will recognise the difficulty of finding appropriate words to define what overcrowding is. A great number of people who have studied the problem have contended that it would be wiser to have no definition, but to leave the matter to the discretion of the local authorities and allow them to make their own bylaws. Rightly or wrongly, however—and I do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman in this—it has been decided that there should be a definition. The right hon. Gentleman is taking his courage in two hands. It is his pride and boast that here for the first time in an Act of Parliament there is a definition of overcrowding, and an attempt is to be made to apply it universally throughout the country—a most difficult thing to do. A similar attempt in the case of unemployment relief broke down because of the difficulty of applying universal minimum standards of relief to the whole nation, especially in relation to rents. However, these words are to be the guide to local authorities throughout the land, not only for the towns but for the rural areas, not only for big cities like London, but for the provincial towns.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) rather approached the problem from the point of view of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and he emphasised the danger of houses being built to this low standard. But that is not the problem in London. In the houses which are now being built, whether by private enterprise or by local authorities, proper provision is always made for living rooms, and usually a parlour is included as well. There is a different problem in London, and not only in London, but throughout the
Metropolitan area. It is a mistake to think that it is by any means limited to the County of London; it occurs in all those suburban dormitory areas which have sprung up during the last few years around London. The problem there is that houses originally built for one family are being divided up for use by two, three, or even four families. That is going on under our very noses, even in good neighbourhoods—aristocratic districts like Paddington, Westminster and Kensington—owing to the fact that suitable accommodation has not been constructed on a large scale for the working classes in the last 10 years since the War. The landlord is not always the criminal. Probably he is quite willing, and indeed would prefer, that one of the rooms should be allocated for use as a living room, but owing to the pressure of population, the shortage of accommodation, and, still more serious, the high rents, it is a general practice among the working class in large parts of London to use the living room as a bedroom. I agree that there is nothing very serious in the use of a parlour for sleeping purposes. Very often it is a room that is only used for social purposes or for great occasions, but, in my constituency particularly, the living room, where food is cooked and where the whole life of the home is carried on, very commonly contains a bed and is used for sleeping purposes as well.
It has been argued that, although the standard set by the Amendment is a right one, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce it in London. There is such a tremendous leeway to be made up, and there is still such a great and growing shortage of accommodation in some parts of London, that these standards are almost impossible of immediate attainment, and therefore, it is said, we should be satisfied with the standard laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. But I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill give large powers of exemption, and, whatever the standard may be, it will not be possible to achieve it immediately—it must be a matter of time, and must depend on the local authorities' activity in building houses. I understand the purpose of the Amendment to be that, if an Act of Parliament is to contain a standard which is to be recognised as indicating that there is no overcrowding, it should be a reason-
able one which people have a right to demand, and I say that the present standard provided in the Bill is, according to all housing authorities, too low.
I have on the Paper an Amendment, which I moved in Committee, suggesting an alteration in the Schedule, which might provide a means of achieving our purpose, but the right hon. Gentleman up to the present has resisted any alteration in the Schedule. If the Schedule is not to be altered, I think that the Act itself should contain something better as a recognised standard than is at present provided in the Bill. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that this country, to its credit, has been looked up to hitherto as the country above all that has laid down the right standards at which to aim, and it is not right that we should allow it to be suggested that in this Bill, in 1935, we are lowering the standards which have been recognised under the Public Health Acts as indicating absence of overcrowding. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment attaches special importance to its wording, and, if the Minister is prepared to find some better definition, I would suggest that he might very well give way. The standard provided in the Clause as it stands at present is far too low.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: There is this to be said about a general standard for the whole country, that it is apt to be too low in one district while it may very well be too high in another. I do not think that the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss), for example, would suggest that this standard is too low for London in present circumstances. My real reason for rising, however, was to draw the attention of the House to one of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). He was speaking about the undoubted fact that people in the North, in Lancashire and Yorkshire, do not sleep in kitchens, though in London they do. I quite agree, and I was worried about kitchens being included. I asked a question on that point in Committee, and received 'a most specific assurance from the I'4inister that, in districts where a particular type of living room was in variably used as a living room and not as a bedroom, that type of room would be left out of the Schedule. [HON. MEM-
BERS: "It cannot be."] I would like to ask again for a reassurance from the Minister that, in districts where people are not accustomed to sleeping in the kitchen, the kitchen will not in fact be included in the number of rooms in the house for the purpose of the survey. I think that that is the point.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Every room is included.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I do not think the hon. Member has looked at Clause 12—

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I have looked at all the Clauses.

Mr. CROSSLEY: Then I suggest that he should look again at Clause 12. If he does, I think lie will see that Clause 12 should be read in conjunction with the Clause that we are now discussing. It says:
'Room' does not include any room of a type not normally used in the locality either as a living room or as a bedroom.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Surely the hon. Member will agree that in that sort of locality that sort of room is in fact ordinarily used as a living room.

Mr. CROSSLEY: Yes; I think I am wrong on that point.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is it not the case that in Yorkshire and Lancashire the living room is generally the kitchen?

Mr. CROSSLEY: Yes, I agree; I think I am wrong on that point, and I apologise. I feel that the Minister did intend to give me an assurance when he replied to the question that I specially put to him in Committee. He said:
Let me take up here the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) as regards kitchens in the North. He said that there should be proper elasticity to deal with that matter in the Bill. As a matter of fact, elasticity is provided for the purpose which he has in mind, namely, to deal with the cases in which local housing habits are strongly ingrained in the people of a particular locality. Clause 11 provides that the definition of 'room' is not to include any room of o, type not normally used in the locality either as a living room or as a bedroom.
I would ask if the Minister could give me some assurance—

Sir H. YOUNG: Would my hon. Friend read the next sentence?

Mr. CROSSLEY: Yes. He went on to say:
A type of kitchen which is not norm ally used as a bedroom or a sitting-room is not to be counted as a room 'under the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 19th February, 1935; col. 59.]
I confess, however, that that does not meet the point which I intended to raise, and did raise, in Committee, and which I raise again now. In a kitchen, the average floor space, I believe, is about20 square feet. The average space covered by furniture is about 45 square feet, and, if there is a bed in it, the aver age space covered by the bed is about 30 square feet. That does not allow much additional space. The room can only be cleaned in the morning, and altogether it is not a very sanitary arrangement. It may be necessary in London, but there again I would ask the Minister whether he could not compromise in districts where the inclusion of a kitchen will really help to destroy the intention of the Bill, and whether he could not specifically exclude kitchens from the rooms to be included in the First Schedule? I apologise to the House for having made a serious mistake in the first part of my speech, but I did not intend in any way to minimise the point I wished to bring forward.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: It will be generally agreed that it would be very easy to introduce into the Bill a definition of overcrowding which would make the Bill unworkable, and I have no desire, in supporting the Amendment, to introduce a definition which would in any way slow down the effort to deal with this matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) that we in Lancashire view the question possibly differently from what seems to be the view of London Members. We consider that a house is overcrowded if any room other than a bedroom is used for sleeping. I could give cases to-day of hundreds of houses in my division which are over crowded where no one is sleeping in any room but bedrooms. The Minister, if he visited my division as he has visited other divisions and gone through slum areas, would agree that a goodly number of the houses were overcrowded, but no one in those houses sleeps in a room other than a bedroom. To suggest to people that because they have an additional
child some member of the family should sleep in the kitchen or the living room would be looked upon as treating them very unworthily. It is from that point of view that I want the Minister to deal with the question.
I realise his difficulty. He is bound to apply his definition to some areas for the time being. I do not expect him to say that he will accept the Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper, but, in his desire to deal effectively and expeditiously with overcrowding, he should have some regard for the habits of people in the North of England. If he would say here and now that, in areas where they had never known such a thing as having to sleep in rooms other than bedrooms as a normal habit, he would make provision in this Bill to meet their case, I should, speaking for myself, feel that I had been well met. I agree that in London the habit is for people to sleep in rooms other than bedrooms, but even in London it is a bad habit which ought not to be encouraged, especially by the Minister of Health. We ought not to encourage any habit in London or outside which endangers health, and I am sure that he would agree that sleeping in a living room as a normal habit does endanger health. As habits vary throughout the country, will he not provide for the position to be dealt with in the Bill in the way we suggest, so that sleeping in living rooms shall not be imposed upon people in areas where the practice has never been known?

4.48 p.m.

Mr. SELLEY: I cannot speak of the North although I know the country pretty well, but I was hoping that hon. Members would have regarded this Bill as a housing charter and would have recognised that for the first time a Minister has had the courage to come to the House of Commons and lay down a standard of overcrowding. The problem of London is a very difficult one. A lot of working-class people, particularly in London, are living in what one might almost call houses handed down by more fortunate neighbours. Houses in certain areas in London become worn out The habits of the locality change, and the houses gradually go down the scale and become slums. When our suits of clothes come to the end of their life and get on
to the scarecrows in the fields we regard them as finished with, but it is not so with houses. You pass them down to your poor relations. Houses round the Islington and Finsbury districts and in the different parts of London which were built to accommodate a different class of person are now slums with which we have to deal.
What is the first problem that will confront those who are called upon to carry out this great work? They will have to find the measure of their job, and that task is to be put upon the borough councils. The borough councils will have to make a survey in each of the areas that are to come under review. In doing so, they will for the first time find the weight of population that can be carried in the houses within their area. The next thing is that either the borough council or the county council will have to find the additional accommodation to meet the overburden of population. Hon. Members above the Gangway say: "Let the Minister accept the Amendment and everything will be all right."

Mr. GREENWOOD: Oh, no, I have not said that. I do not accept the standards at all. I hope that I did not lead the House to believe that if this Amendment were accepted the remaining standards would be all right. That is far from the truth.

Mr. SELLEY: We will progress in stages. Let us accept that the fact is, as the Minister says, to set up a standard of two persons per habitable room. If we are to impose anything in the nature of the present Amendment that no one should sleep in a kitchen or what is known as a kitchen, or what had at one time been a dressing room you would have to say to the unfortunate workman in the tenement house that he must have another room for his family. The first obligation that would be put upon him would be an increase in rent. I beg of hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that we are dealing with this problem in the transition stage, and that it is a very difficult one. If you say to a workman who is occupying two or three rooms in a tenement house that his family is of such a size that he must have additional rooms, you will put an intolerable burden upon him.
I have inquired into many cases in London. In one particular area I know of
an eight-roomed house which was originally built to accommodate one family. The weight of population there, if we take the Minister's standard to-day, will be 16 persons, no matter how they may be distributed. In that house to-day there are 32 persons. It is not a rent problem. The sum of 73s. a week is being charged as the rent for those eight rooms. [An HON. MEMBER: "Scandalous!"] I agree that it is scandalous, and I would like to sweep it away at once, but do not let us try and cramp the Minister in what he is attempting to do by putting in an impossible standard. He has done a great thing for housing and for the public conscience in that we are not going to tolerate more than two persons in one habitable room.
There is another point. Hon. Members speak about the living room and say that persons could not sleep in the living room. What are we going to do? Are we to set up a board of inspectors to go into all these houses and see how the people distribute themselves at night? No, we have to fight shy of that sort of thing. If we set up our standard we must, to use a very common expression, leave it to the people to sort themselves out. This Bill is a move forward. I agree with hon. Members of the Opposition every time that we should increase our standards as and when opportunity presents itself until we have cleared out this grave scandal of overcrowding, but at present I suggest that we have gone as far as we can reasonably go.

4.55 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): We have had so many interesting discussions on this housing standard that, although we may not agree with each other's case, I think that we have begun to appreciate it. I begin by directing the House to the point which was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), that this is the first Bill that in fact lays down a standard, and it is a very great gain. The object of the Amendment is simple. It seeks to lay down the rule that a particular room shall be treated in a particular way. A living room shall not be slept in. There are two ways of dealing with the housing standard, and they are fundamentally opposite. You can either lay down rules governing the occupation of a particular
room, or you can choose the method in the Bill of fixing the maximum number of persons which can inhabit a particular house, having regard to the number or the size of rooms in the house. Those two methods are fundamentally different. I suggest to the House that the method which we have chosen is the right one. If you try and say that any particular room must be kept for a living room, it follows, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley) pointed out, that a horde of inspectors would immediately be required by the housing authority. A question was asked whether, under the Bill, the Minister or I was going round at night to make sure that no living room had any bed in it, but we have chosen the far simpler way of fixing a maximum number in respect of a particular house of a particular size. How that number of people live in the house is no concern of ours; if they all like to sleep in the same bed, then good luck to them. All we say is that in relation to that particular house we will not allow that number to be exceeded, and we fix the number in relation to a minimum standard of tolerability. That is the first point.
The second point is that, having established a principle, we now fix a maximum number for the house of a particular size. Everybody knows the meaning of the Manchester housing standard. That standard, broadly speaking, is that you exclude one room as a living room, and allow 2½ persons per bedroom. If hon. Members will look at the First Schedule and take the houses of over two rooms they will find that we have aimed at achieving the Manchester standard. For instance, for a three-roomed house, we deduct one room assuming it to be a living room. That leaves two rooms, and twice 2½ is five, which is the permitted number, assuming that the rooms are all of the normal size. The same applies with regard to four rooms. You deduct one room, and three times 2½ is 7½. So that under our system we have achieved the Manchester standard with-out putting upon ourselves the duty of a meticulous inspection, which would break down the whole scheme. Hon. Members must realise the sheer impossibility of enforcing the principle of the Amendment, in all dwellings of under three rooms. In one or two-roomed houses it would be quite impossible to enforce the
standard enjoined by the Amendment at all. According to the housing census there are at least 260,000 families of one or two persons in one family at present living in single rooms, so that they would have to seek accommodation elsewhere.
I want to emphasise this point. Several hon. Members have spoken as if the Minister of Health was insisting upon people sleeping in the living room. Of course, that is a travesty of the truth. Nobody is compelled to sleep in a living room if he does not want to do so. No doubt the habits which obtain in the North will remain; and the habit in the South, where in certain circumstances of housing a bed is put in the living room for a boy or girl, will go on. But surely the right hon. Gentleman is forgetting the main purpose of this Bill, which is to set a penal standard and not an ideal housing standard. We have never contemplated an ideal standard in this Bill. When we are dealing with the provision of new houses the housing standard we work on under this Bill is Section 37 of the 1930 Act, which was a standard generally accepted. Nothing in this penal standard affects that provision. Let hon. Members get that clear. In the provision of fresh accommodation the standard that obtains is the standard of Section 37 of the 1930 Act, which is a bedroom standard. But when you are dealing with a criminal offence in respect of over crowding it is obvious that you have to choose a standard that is reasonable and one that can be enforced. If you do any thing else, the whole conception of a standard and the enforcement of the standard breaks down.
The hon. Member for Oldham asked a question as to what was to be the position of the kitchen under what is now Clause 12. We realise that in many parts of the country the kitchen, being small, will not be counted as a room at all. That is the position in very many areas. There are other parts of the country where the kitchen is very large and is used as a living room. Under Clause 12 the local authority has the right to exclude a room—in considering how many rooms there are in the house—if it is not normally used either as a living room or as a sleeping room. But over and above that, whether used as a living room or not, the kitchen, if under 50 feet square,
is excluded altogether. I do want to re-emphasise the heart of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that we were writing a new chapter in housing history. Do not let us start that by writing the last chapter. If we write the last chapter and fix an ideal housing standard, the whole basis of this Bill will break down.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: The Parliamentary Secretary told us just now that in this Bill we were writing a new chapter in the history of housing. When I listened to the earlier part of his remarks, if I may say so without offence, I wondered whether he was supplying ideas for a new film for the next election, because he has not done justice to the Amendment as put forward by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). It is perfectly true that in this Bill we are making the house the unit for the standard of the definition of overcrowding. How is that going to work out in practice? Will it meet with some measure of success? The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have said that it would do so. In the definition laid down in this Clause and in subsequent chapters you take a four-roomed house and you permit seven and a half people to live in that four-roomed house; that is to say seven adults and one child between the age of one and 10 years.
What will that mean in practice? In dealing with overcrowding, particularly in the industrial districts of the North, you have to remember that you are dealing with property which has been in existence for 60 and in some cases 80 or 100 years. You have two rooms "up" and two rooms "down." Of the two rooms downstairs one is regarded as a living room and is often called the kitchen, while the other downstairs room is called "the room." What is called the kitchen in some parts of Yorkshire would be the ordinary room that the people live in, where in one corner you have the tap and the sink. What you call "the room" is the place where they have a suite of furniture, the room which other people might call the parlour. Under the definition laid down in this Bill you permit in a house of that size seven adults and one child between the age of one and 10 years. You might have the father and mother sleeping in
one bedroom—and I hope nobody will suggest that some other person should sleep in that room—and in the other bedroom you might have five adults, three sons and two daughters; and yet that house would not be regarded as overcrowded under this Bill.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the hon. Member is talking about houses in the North—the "one up and one down" type, or the "two up and two down" type—he will find that the permitted number of persons he mentions, seven for a four-roomed house, will often be reduced because the size of the rooms will come under Table II of the Annex to the First Schedule. If so the permitted number of seven will be reduced.

Mr. T. SMITH: Under the First Schedule, it is stated that seven and a-half people can live in a four-roomed house. I think the hon. Gentleman had better answer "yea" or "nay" whether my interpretation of this Clause is correct. I submit that under this Schedule in an ordinary four-roomed house with two rooms up and two down seven adults and one child will be permitted to live without that house being described as overcrowded. The effect of having seven adults in a house with only two ordinary bedrooms is that if you have the father and mother in one bedroom you have two or three beds in the other room; or you compel the people to use one of the downstair rooms as a bedroom. I do not know how many Members have had experience of overcrowded housing conditions, but I had 17 years of lodgings, and I think I know just a little bit about how working-class people live. So far as we are concerned on these benches, I am bound to say that we—and particularly those Members representing the industrial North—cannot be a party to the definition of overcrowding which compels people to sleep in a room ordinarily used as a living room. I want Members of all parties to face up to this question, not in any party spirit but from the ordinary human and social standpoint. After all, people living in these overcrowded conditions do not live in such conditions from choice.
It used to be the practice when a pit was sunk in our locality to get houses up as quickly as possible without any regard to decent standards and overcrowding. That had to be put up with because
there were not any other better houses in the district, and the wage earners could not afford to pay decent rents. I want hon. Members to reflect on what is the position in a house where you have people sleeping in the ordinary living room. Have not the children of these people as much right to have some room in which to do their homework and study as have the children of people in better economic circumstances? And what is the position where you have a young man or a young woman at work coming home to a place where there is a bed in the living room. The effect of that is to drive them out of the house as quickly as possible. You could not sit and read a book with a bed in the place; and young men and women have been compelled to go out and seek entertainment elsewhere because of these overcrowding conditions. We have a right to have it inserted in this definition that one room shall be regarded as a living room.
There is another angle to the problem. Do hon. Members realise what the position is when someone has to sleep in a living room? Take the case of such a house when there are two lads working on the afternoon shift at the pit. They have to go home and get rid of their pit dirt in the room where there is a bed, and the person who is going to sleep in that bed in the living room cannot go to sleep until the other people have cleared out. I submit to the House that we shall be laying down a standard which is far too low if we accept this definition, and I do earnestly hope that Members will help in supporting the Amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary made some reference to the Manchester standard. I am pleased that he did so. When this matter was being discussed in Committee, we were told by the Minister of Health that this definition of overcrowding was arrived at after very careful and prolonged discussion with all the local authorities of the country and their medical officers. I submit that when the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to the Manchester standard he ought at least to have made reference to the circular sent out to the Members of the Committee by the medical officer of health for Manchester. If he had done that, it would have been found that in that circular letter, dated 14th February, there is the strongest possible opposition to this definition and the letter urges that
there should be at least one room defined as a living room. There is also another aspect of this matter. In this country, unfortunately, we have not yet seen fit to establish in many localities a sufficient number of maternity homes; and because of that many confinements take place in the ordinary dwelling-houses. And in the circular letter sent by the medical officer of health for Manchester this fact is commented on, and I think the extract is worth reading because it justifies what we have in mind in putting forward this Amendment. The letter says:
Ordinary decency and privacy are with difficulty obtainable if a living room is also used as a bedroom. As an illustration of this, I would refer to a report prepared by me on the conditions in which confinements occur in working-class houses in Manchester. This report is in my Annual Report for 1926, pages 244 to 248, where it is shown that privacy for confinement was not possible in 54 per cent. of the 1,000 confinements investigated.
I want hon. Members of all parties to reflect on what this definition means and to ask them whether they cannot agree to the exclusion of at least one room which shall be regarded as the living room. As far as the position in London is concerned, it may be that there are difficulties to face which other local authorities have not to face in the same way. But I do submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he would be doing a good turn to housing progress if he would be less rigid in his insistence on accepting this definition and would agree to the Amendment, which only says that a room ordinarily used as a living room shall be excluded from the definition of overcrowding. I hope sincerely that we shall carry our Amendment. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), in Committee, mentioned that he lived occasionally in a bed-sitting room.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I mentioned the case of a bed-sitting room, but I did not say that I was living in one.

Mr. SMITH: The difference between a bed-sitting room and an ordinary dwelling-house is that the person who uses the bed-sitting room does not usually live there; he sleeps there and goes out early next morning. In those circumstances the bed-sitting room can be very convenient, but in the ordinary dwelling-house under the housing conditions in industrial districts the woman is almost a
slave if the sitting room is used as a bedroom and she has to do all her washing, baking and the hundred and one things of the household there. We ought to see to it that the room used as a living room shall be excluded from the definition of overcrowding.

5.16 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) seemed to prove a great deal more than he intended. My difficulty about the Debate is that a case has been made out for the exclusion of one room in certain circumstances, but in the case of the two up and two down house dealt with by the hon. Member for Normanton, the effect of the Amendment would be that the house would be overcrowded if it contained a man, his wife, a daughter of 14 and a son of 11, because the daughter and the son could not sleep in the same bedroom. Presumably, one of them would have to sleep in the kitchen or the living room downstairs. That would be impossible under the Amendment. Its effect in the case that I have quoted would be that either the daughter or the son must sleep in the living room, because they could not sleep together in a room upstairs.

Mr. T. SMITH: I am afraid that the Noble Lord's experience of housing has not been in working-class practice. There are occasions when the father has to sleep with the son in order to economise bedroom space.

Lord E. PERCY: I am talking about this Bill, and as I read it, plus the Amendment which the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has moved, it would make that house overcrowded with four people in it. I would ask for confirmation of that view, but so far as I can see that is the fact. Therefore, the Amendment clearly will not do. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is impossible, where local custom requires it, to withdraw one room as the living room in the house for the purpose of assessing the space.

5.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel LLEWELLIN: The Government were right in refusing to accept the Amendment. We are setting up penal consequences under this Bill for the owner and the occupier, and, if the
Amendment were inserted, the effect would be to alter the condition of the house as it was used by a particular tenant. That is to say, if the tenant brought in enough furniture for three living rooms, he might have only one bedroom in a four-roomed house. There is no definition in the Amendment how one constitutes a room other than a bedroom. The normal way in the ordinary course of life is by the different kind of furniture that is brought into the room. You can alter the condition of a house from having one living room, to having, say, two living rooms or possibly three living rooms by the kind of furniture that the tenant brings into the room. So far as I know there is no other way in which you can turn a room in a house from a living room into a bedroom. Therefore, it is clear that this Amendment is not such as should go into a Statute of this kind.
The second point is that, whatever anybody may say, the Amendment clearly prohibits any of the working classes from living in what is termed a bed-sitting room. That would make one law for the rich and one for the poor, because the rich man living in the west-end would be able to live in his bed-sitting room but if a person lived in a working class area he would be liable as an occupier to penalties under the Act, for living in a room which was used other than as a bedroom. If that is not too absurd for words, I do not know what is. It is clear that the Government are fully justified in refusing to accept the Amendment. I take the same view as the Parliamentary Secretary that when you are starting a new penal code—people are going to be brought into the courts, and I hope that they will be if they contravene the Statute—you must start lower than you may ultimately hope to get. I hope that eventually we shall be able to tighten up the Act by excluding certainly one sitting room in the house, but if you are starting this new penal code for owners and occupiers it is well to start on the low side rather than the high.
In the case quoted by the Noble Lord it is clear that those four people would not be allowed to live in that house unless the suggestion of the hon. Member for Normanton was carried out. In that four-roomed house there were two bedrooms and two living rooms, occupied by a husband and wife and a boy and girl over
the ages when they could sleep in the same room. If the two downstairs rooms were living rooms in accordance with the Amendment, the only way in which that family of four could live in the house would be by the husband and son sleeping in one room and the wife and daughter in the other. I think—I do not know how many hon. Members will agree with me—that it is far better for the husband and wife to have one bedroom and the daughter perhaps an upstairs room and the son one of the living rooms downstairs.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Sleep downstairs in the living room?

Lieut.-Colonel LLEWELLIN: The hon. Member talks as if it were impossible to live on the ground floor. He seems to disregard the fact that there are a very large number of bungalows in this country and that a very large number of people of all classes are happy and contented in living on the ground floor. It is better that the son should have to sleep in what might be the parlour rather than the husband and the son should have to sleep in one room and the wife and daughter in the other. If the Amendment were accepted they would have to sleep in the two rooms upstairs. Therefore, the Government have done right in asking the House to reject the Amendment.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: We have just listened to one of those complacent speeches which cause me from time to time to be very sorry for the state of mind of hon. Members who apparently know nothing about the practical application of the thing that they put before the House. This is a question which should by no means be dealt with flippantly. If hon. Members desire to represent the working-class people in their constituencies they ought to attempt to find out what the lives and habits of working-class people are. It makes me feel most indignant when I hear hon. Members declare: "You can have a bed in the sitting room; you can have a bed in the parlour." How would the hon. and gallant Member like his daughter to come home with a friend and to go into the sitting room and find that there was a bed in the room? The purpose of the room is destroyed in that way. This sort of thing makes me feel from time to time that there is a feel-
ing in this House that any sort of measure is good enough for working people to put up with.
I was hoping that this Bill was a real attempt to deal with the question of over crowding. I represent a midland constituency and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Williams) knows that constituency as well as I do. No one knows better than the hon. Member what would happen if he went into that constituency and said: "We have just passed a new and glorious chapter in our housing legislature, a Bill to prevent over crowding, and the result of it is that you are now to use your front rooms as bed rooms." What would the people of Wednesbury say to that? They would say: "Herbert, we do not think very much of you after that." The standard laid down in the Bill begins primarily with the conditions which exist in London. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was a step in the right direction that- a standard was being laid down. To impose the housing conditions of London upon the towns and cities of the provinces is altogether wrong. I have lived in a London borough for the last 20 years, not because I wanted to do so but because I was compelled to do so by economic circumstances. I know something about London life and housing. It is an astonishing fact that in the borough of Fulham, where I live, 50 per cent. of the deaths occur in public institutions. There is no room for them to die at home.
Hon. Members declare: "It is all right. Why should not people have a bed in the sitting room?" Why should they not have a bed in the kitchen, let them use all their rooms. The women in Stafford shire used to call that pigging together. There is no decency or comfort in it.
We are dealing with a Bill to prevent overcrowding. I spoke to the medical officer of health for Wednesbury with regard to it, and he declared that the standards in the Bill are considerably lower than those which at present obtain throughout the Black Country, and that it will be difficult to schedule thousands of houses as being overcrowded under its terms although they are overcrowded. I know the difficulties of housing in London, but to lay down a standard for London and apply it to the provinces is altogether wrong. I heard the Parliamentary
Secretary make a most eloquent speech on housing. He swept me away with him. He declared that nothing would stand more to the credit of the Government than their attempt to deal with housing and overcrowding. If there is to be anything to the credit of the Government in this matter, it must be along lines which will bring decency and comfort inside working-class homes. It is all very well for the Noble Lord to talk about four-roomed houses. I was brought up in one, a little kitchen, a little parlour, the holy of holies, containing a round table, some books, with the Bible in the centre, and the childrens' hymn books. Does the Noble Lord mean that such a room, the treasure of the wife, should be turned into a bedroom?

Lord E. PERCY: I did not advocate turning it into a bedroom. My question was whether hon. Members opposite really meant what would be the effect of the Amendment, that four, father and mother, daughter and son, may not live in the house. That is the effect of the Amendment.

Mr. BANFIELD: I see no reason why father and mother and daughter and son should not live in that house without it being overcrowded.

Lord E. PERCY: They could not under the Amendment.

Mr. BANFIELD: The Noble Lord quoted the age of the son as 14 years and the daughter as 11 years. I have been in many houses of this kind. I have known a daughter and son in one bedroom divided by a curtain.

Lord E. PERCY: That is forbidden by the Bill. That is my point.

Mr. BANFIELD: I was endeavouring to tell the Noble Lord what I have seen in my experience. I have known cases when father and son have had to sleep together and mother and daughter, but more than anything else I am more concerned whether the operation of the Bill will make the position of overcrowding better not worse. Some of the standards prevailing in provincial towns and cities are such that the Bill will be unworkable in many instances. I admit that it is better to start on a low standard, but I object to the bad conditions of the London area being taken as the standard and applied to the provinces. There may
be objections as to how the Amendment would work, but it would be a bad thing if we went to these most respectable people, decent housewives, people who are proud of their homes although they are small, who treasure their front room and take a pride in their household gods, and told them it did not matter; they must use it as a bedroom. The argument about the amount of furniture brought in three rooms as sitting rooms and furniture only for one bedroom is a bad argument. That does not happen. There is difficulty enough in getting houses properly furnished and working people do not do silly things like that. They only buy the furniture they want, and to suggest that they would deliberately fill three rooms out of four with furniture for sit ting rooms and furnish one bedroom is absurd. I make an appeal to the Minister. We believe that he wants to do the best, he can for the working people and to make the Bill one which will be of some use and help and comfort to them. Is it not possible for him to raise the standards as far as areas outside London are concerned? Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that the normal housing conditions in the Midlands and the North and to the south of London are altogether different to those in the London area, and it should not be beyond the wit of the Minister to meet the objections which have been raised, supported as they are by the medical officers of health in the local areas.

5.42 p.m.

Sir GEORGE GILLETT: Like other hon. Members, I fully recognise the claims of the working people of this country to the best housing accommodation that can be provided, but looking at the Amendment from a London point of view, and as a representative of one of the most densely populated areas, it is impossible to support it. The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss) when this question was before the Committee upstairs said that even on the standards in the Bill the London County Council would find it difficult to get rid of the overcrowded conditions in the London area. The problem in London is one of tremendous difficulty. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) has given us some of his experiences, and I must say that they are exceedingly mild. When I heard him referring to the conditions in his own constituency, I felt
that if we could transfer some of the people of Finsbury to that area they would be very thankful to live under the conditions he has described.
There is one point which has not been mentioned so far. What will my constituents say to me if I support the Amendment, which means that they will have to use two or three more rooms as sleeping rooms. If I go to them and say that they are to be removed because of the new standards in the Bill, what are they going to say to me? They may say that they will not be able to provide four or five rooms as required under the new standards. How is the increased amount of rent, which they will have to pay, to be met? What is that going to mean to many of these families? One room in Finsbury costs 5s. or 6s., and what are two extra rooms going to mean to a working man and his wife and family? I remember going on one occasion to a new block of dwellings put up by the borough council and interviewing the wife of a railwayman who had moved into one of these flats. That had a large family, and she complained to me of the proportion of her husband's wages which had to go by way of rent. That is my difficulty to-day. If I support the Amendment I do not know what it will mean to many of these people. We have no idea what it will really mean to a man in the proportion of his wages which will have to be paid in rent. You may make the condition of that family worse if you divert so much of the man's inadequate wage, which I agree is inadequate in many instances, to rent, in order to get a better standard of housing. I think it is absolutely impossible to support the Amendment and agree entirely that we do want to provide the best housing conditions possible.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I had no intention of taking part in the Debate until the speech of the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin). I am one of those who have great admiration for the Minister of Health and his work for housing, and I have no desire in this Debate to try to use any arguments for the purpose of scoring a point. But I do suggest that the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge has not the slightest idea of how working people
are housed. Perhaps the House will for give me if I mention my own case, and I need not go any further. Up to the age of 15 I was brought up in a house which had one room downstairs and two rooms upstairs. There were six of us in the family. We would have been allowed to occupy that house under this Bill—two under ten years of age, two above, and father and mother. In that room downstairs, call it kitchen or whatever you like, all the cooking and all the washing were done, and six persons breathed what little oxygen they could get. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge tells me that that is a satisfactory housing standard for the working people of this country. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Health thinks so too. I do not believe he does. But I do say that you cannot expect to rear healthy people under such conditions.
I would have liked to have seen a provision in the Bill that no living room should be taken into consideration when assessing the necessary accommodation for sleeping purposes. I hope I shall be forgiven for that personal illustration, but I know what it is for four children and a father and mother to exist under such conditions. That was 30 years ago. Now, with all the progress that the world has made since then, when the social conscience of the people is aroused as it has never been aroused before, for an hon. Member to ask us to accept as the minimum standard conditions which we then had to endure, is not worthy of this House. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Manchester standard. Let it be quite clear to the House that no one believing in the Manchester standard would agree that this is a better standard. I know that there are different ways of calculating what is meant, but at least the Manchester standard, so far as I understand it, does mean that people are not asked to sleep in living rooms. Spending money as we are on health services of every kind, to expect a healthy nation to be reared by sleeping in rooms where six people have been breathing all day long, in rooms where cooking has taken place, where washing has been done, and everything else that is necessary in a house has been done, shows a total ignorance of the needs of the time. As I have said, I have a great
admiration for all that the Minister of Health is attempting in order to improve housing. I pay him that tribute sincerely. But I suggest that he would make this Bill a much better Bill if he would limit the accommodation for sleeping to rooms other than living rooms.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: Having listened to the whole Debate since the Amendment was moved with characteristic force by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), I am impressed with the seriousness of certain considerations that arise from it. The hon. Member who has just spoken has said what so many feel on this side of the House—that we and the country owe a debt of gratitude to the Minister of Health for the continuous and determined attack which he has made upon the bad housing conditions that still exist, and we would assure him of our whole-hearted support in his effort. But without falling too much for sentiment on the one side or giving too little regard to the logic on the other side, I do join in the plea to the Minister to consider whether some steps can be taken by him before this matter leaves him finally, to give effect to the enforcement of a higher standard.
We all take a great deal of pride in the fact that for the first time the Government are attempting to attack overcrowding, to define overcrowding, to eliminate it, and to establish a minimum standard from which improvement can spring. We all know that when you prescribe, in circumstances of this nature, something which you say is a minimum, it is very apt to be accepted with complacency as a satisfactory maximum. That is the very thing which I for one want to avoid. I would like to see in every house of every family a real sufficiency of every modern appliance and convenience and assistance. When it is said that we in this House seem to think that anything is good enough for working people, I characterise that as sheer and utter nonsense. In these days of science and progress in relieving drudgery we ought in any legislation to mobilise all those forces for the welfare of the people as a whole whom we are to house.
The first basis of a contented nation must be a nation well housed. It is wholly wrong to say that this Bill seeks to secure that people shall sleep in
kitchens. It does not seek anything of the kind. The Bill establishes a certain minimum, but at the same time it permits sleeping in a living room where people have been living all day. That is the kind of thing that I for one would like to see abolished. But we have to realise that, the difficulties are acute. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that there were over 250,000 people living as single families in bed-sitting rooms. Some of these may not be open to the same criticism. Certain of them are not what we desire to see, and it is an undesirable position which was attacked at great length by one hon. Member opposite. He spoke of the condition of affairs that must arise when one or two young people desire to utilise the kitchen and are almost forced out of this room because it has to become sleeping accommodation for someone else.
We ought to do all we can, in the new conception of housing which the Government have brought about, to see that home life is an invitation to the young people of a house to take a pride in their home, and for those who own the home to take a still further pride in the establishment. It would be unfortunate if we were to say that this Bill, which may be a housing charter, may pass with one black spot which will allow the existence of such a state of affairs as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). To accept the Amendment as drawn would bring about very great difficulties. The Amendment might be absolutely impracticable. It is all very well to try to criticise any proposal by saying, "I want to see something better, a much better standard for those who live in these circumstances." We all want to see that. But we have to remember that there would be a very great responsibility upon any one of us if, because of some idea in our minds, we hindered the Minister in the progress of his work. I fail to see how it is possible, by the Amendment as worded, so to arrange that you can at once dispossess from their dwellings those thousands of single-family tenants in single rooms, which you would have to do to remedy the real evil at which we aim, and how you could prohibit any person at any time from utilising a kitchen for sleeping accommodation. It would mean an inquisition almost nightly at every house. Someone would have to
enter each one of the rooms, each one of the kitchens and living rooms in order to see whether on a particular night anyone was about to utilise that room for sleeping accommodation.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Read the Bill.

Mr. LYONS: I do not think that any one, whatever he may think of the amenities of bungalow residences or of the advantages of some ground-floor tenancies, can dispose of the matter as readily as that, and say, "It is all very well to sleep in a bungalow and on the ground floor and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in sleeping in a kitchen." Of course there is nothing wrong in sleeping on the ground floor as such. The difficulty is that we are going to pass a Measure in which we lay down as a minimum something which might be adopted with complacency as a satisfactory maximum. I would like to see that possibility taken away by this Bill for all time. I would like, if it were practicable, to ensure full amenities for the housing of all the people, both in sleeping rooms and independent living rooms.
On the other hand, we must not allow sentiment to obscure the logical consequences of this Amendment as it is drafted. But I would like to think, now that we have for the first time a Government which has the courage to direct its energies to ridding the country of the evil of overcrowding, that we are laying down a proper standard in these matters. I hope therefore that the Minister will give fresh consideration to the question of the standard which is to be adopted, and that the Bill may be improved in the one respect in which I think it needs improvement. It was said by an hon. Member earlier that this was a matter which ought to be considered free from any party bias. I think it has been so considered. Time and time again in dealing with these housing matters the Minister has shown himself to be mindful only of the public considerations involved. Giving full regard to those considerations, in this instance, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to frame an Amendment which will deal satisfactorily with this point but will have none of the unfortunate repercussions which might be expected to follow from the Amendment
of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I wish to answer certain points which have been advanced by various Members on this Amendment, and particularly to deal with the argument of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir G. Gillett) who was good enough to quote a statement which I made in Committee on the matter. He advanced the argument that a very difficult situation would arise in London if this Amendment were carried I agree that if the Amendment were incorporated in the Bill and applied to London, an impossible situation for London would arise. At the same time I suggest that to look at this matter solely as it Concerns London is to take a parochial point of view on a very important question. The situation in London is unique. The overcrowding conditions in London are worse than they are elsewhere in the country. I do not wish to be controversial or to go into the reasons for that state of things. Plainly, one of the reasons is that there has not been sufficient re-housing—that sufficient new houses have not been built during the last 10 years—but I do not pursue the matter any further than that. But are the particularly bad conditions in London to be made a reason for bringing the rest of the country down to the London standard? I suggest that the rest of the country ought not to be penalised by the bad conditions in London, and my proposal is that the Amendment should be carried and the London area exempted from it under Clause 4. I do not think this House ought to agree to laying down for the whole country a minimum which everyone agrees is undesirable and which may become a standard. I submit to those hon. Members who are concerned about conditions in London that we ought to look rather further afield, that we ought not to consider London only but the country as a whole, and that we ought to accept the Amendment as it appears on the paper on the understanding that London would have to be exempted.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. CLEARY: I readily appreciate the difficulties of London Members, but I am bound to point out that London is not Great Britain, and that those who represent other parts of the country have a
duty to their own constituencies. I find it more difficult to appreciate the anxiety of other hon. Members who have cited exceptional cases and instances in order to justify their opposition to the Amendment. Two main arguments have been advanced. The first was brought forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and his argument has, I think, been met. I think he would find, as regards the case mentioned by him, that that is quite a common occurrence in many towns and cities in this country, and that, even in the circumstances which he detailed, there would be no contravention of the standards which it is sought to establish in the Bill. It may not be an ideal way, but if it is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils that is certainly no compliment to the Bill.
The other argument has been that of the bed-sitting room. Is that a fair argument or is it a justifiable manner of trying to find a flaw in the Amendment? A bed-sitting room of the kind which has been described by some hon. Members is not, during the time when it is converted into a sitting room, used by all kinds of people for general purposes during the day. It is almost entirely monopolised by the one particular person concerned. That can scarcely be regarded as an argument against the Amendment. Then the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that there was no compulsion in this matter. I am aware that the Bill does not seek to lay it down that living rooms should be used as bedrooms. It merely permits living rooms under certain conditions to be used as sleeping rooms, but we are opposed to that proposal. The Under-Secretary in emphasising the fact that there was no compulsion gave us a remarkable alternative. He was magnanimous enough to suggest that even 16 people in a house could all sleep in the one bed. That statement however does not do justice to the Parliamentary Secretary, or to the Government, or to the Measure before the House and it is fortunate that it does not.
It is remarkable that while we are discussing a Clause of this character the local authorities are endeavouring to deal with the problem of density under town planning schemes, and are seeking to ensure that only a certain number of houses shall be built to a certain space, in order
to avoid the danger of the creation of further slums. To my mind by this Clause we are setting up again the old problem and creating slums, by herding the people together in confined spaces. We are seeking to give legal sanction to a standard which certainly would not be tolerated in the North, and we have no right to give any kind of legal sanction to what is unacceptable to the great majority of the people. Take the case of local authorities like my own Who have built model tenements and flats, in connection with which any suggestion of a living-room being used as a bedroom would not be considered for a moment. Is this Clause going to be an encouragement to such local authorities who have built model flats as an example to the country? Even as it is, these kitchens or parlours as the case may be, often have to accommodate bicycles and perambulators, and I have even seen them accommodating coffins. Is it to be suggested that people should be asked to sleep in such rooms? This is a question of going back and of setting a standard which is unacceptable in great areas of this country. We on these benches therefore must demand that if we are going to set up any standard—which is in itself dangerous—for working-class life and conditions we must have a standard more commensurate with the ideas of the days in which we live.

Mr. PIKE: Does the hon. Member apply his requirements to cripples who are unable to get upstairs?

Mr. C LEARY: Another exceptional case, to justify opposition to the Amendment.

6.10 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: Although there may be objections of an important kind to the wording of the Amendment the Minister must recognise that in all quarters of the House there is deep sympathy with its intention. I think that even the case cited by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings was not advanced by him as an objection to the principle of the Amendment but rather as a particular instance of the application of the arithmetical calculation. I understood from the Noble Lord and from other hon. Members opposite that they would be glad if a way could be found of excluding from the calculation, in any area where it was practicable, at
least one room normally used as a living room. There is no doubt I think that that is the general sentiment of the House. This is no mere party matter and I am sure that with a little ingenuity the point of difficulty which has been raised could be got over by the use of Clause 4 to deal with exceptional cases. I think it would be an affront to the people to allow the proposal as it stands in the Clause to be accepted and described as a standard in the rural areas and throughout large parts of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept our Amendment, I would offer one or two suggestions as to possible ways of meeting the general purpose which I have outlined. For example, in the First Schedule in Table 1 he could insert some such words as.
Where a house, apart from one room normally used as a living room consists of," etc.
That would specifically exclude the kind of confusion mentioned by the Noble Lord. It would mean that at least one room normally used as a living room did not enter into the calculation. That would be a perfectly practicable proposition. Then, it would be possible to make provision in Clause 4 for excluding from the operation of the Schedule in that respect any areas which, for good reasons presented by the local authorities, were regarded as suitable for exemption for a term of years, or as the case might be. It is provided in Clause 4 that exemptions to the general intention can be dealt with—and I am sure that the general intention of the House in this case is as I have indicated.
There is one other consideration which has not yet been presented to the right hon. Gentleman but which is just as important as any of the others mentioned so far. If this definition is to stand, it prevents the Bill from giving any real help in the rural areas. Assistance in the rural areas is confined to cases of established overcrowding. In the case of the development areas in the towns, a scheme may be operated where the houses are either overcrowded or unfit. In the rural areas it is limited to cases of proved overcrowding. If you apply the present calculation in the Schedule to cottages in the villages and rural areas, I undertake to say that not one dilapidated cottage in 10 will be found to be technically overcrowded. That is one of the chief objec-
tions in my mind to keeping the Bill as it is and not providing for the exclusion of one room normally used as a living room. If that exclusion were provided for, many of these dilapidated cottages would become technically overcrowded, as they are now actually overcrowded for practical purposes. One of the chief objections to the Bill from my point of view is that it leaves out of account any possibility of giving assistance in the case of the vast majority of rural cottages. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not shut his mind to trying to meet what is, I am sure, the general sense of the House in this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: rose—

Dr. ADDISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to reply at all? It is very discourteous.

Sir H. YOUNG: The right hon. Gentleman will surely acquit me of the charge of discourtesy. A substantial reply was made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who dealt with the matter very fully. I should be most unwilling, of course, to leave unanswered what the right hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has said.

Dr. ADDISON: I think it is a gross discourtesy to the House of Commons.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I have sat here since practically three o'clock, and I did not intend to speak on this Amendment, but now that the Minister has refused to reply to the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), I feel bound to have a few words. I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary is not in his place, because I remember that when he spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill on either the 30th or the 31st January, he stated that his life depended upon this Bill, and that if there was any chopping or changing about it, the possibilities were that the Government would lose a very efficient Parliamentary Secretary. If he did not say it in those words, that is what he meant, and he threatened to resign, at about 10 minutes to 11 one night, and the Government held their breath, thinking they were going to collapse because of this threat. To-day the Parliamentary Secretary has twisted on a threepenny bit in this House. When any Amendments are put forward from
this side, the Government feel it their bounden duty bitterly to oppose them, but Amendments have been accepted, and additional Schedules added to the Bill, from the other side.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are dealing now with a specific Amendment.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was the first Bill that laid down standards, and I wrote down, "And what standards." I have worked it out for the benefit of hon. Members opposite, including the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), that under the Schedule on page 68, where it deals with houses with five rooms, it will be possible that not, until 17 persons are living in such a. house is there any overcrowding. Then they say that this is a Bill to prevent overcrowding.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment deals specifically with people not sleeping in the living room.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: If persons are sleeping anywhere in those five rooms—

Lord E. PERCY: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but the Amendment now before us would not affect the number who might sleep in a house; it does not exclude the living-room from coming into the assessment. It only says that after you have got 17 people in the house, you may not put one of them in the living-room.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The Bill does not say that.

Lord E. PERCY: That is what the Amendment says.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The Amendment says that any person sleeping in the house must sleep in other than the living-room. We say that the Bill at present will permit that there shall be no overcrowding in a five-room house until there are 17 people sleeping in it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not dealing with the Amendment, and if he does not do so, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

6.20 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not want to leave the House under any sense of not having had a Government reply. I am in entire agreement with a great deal of what has been said by those who are moving the
Amendment, both by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and by the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison); and with what has been eloquently said by many Members of the House with such a close knowledge of what is essential for a proper standard of housing accommodation, the Government and, I believe, all my hon. Friends on this side are in cordial agreement. I agree that, according to an ideal housing standard, that room which is set apart as the living-room should not in normal circumstances he used as a bedroom, and according to any ideal standard to which we ought to be able practically to work, we ought to set before our eyes the goal that a living-room should not be used as a bed-room. I agree with that from the points of view of hygiene, morals, and amenities of life, but I want to bring out afresh—it was brought out, I thought, most clearly in the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—just what we are after at the present time in this Bill.
It is true, as was said by one of my hon. Friends, that it is a gross misrepresentation to say that the present Bill obliges people to sleep in the sitting-room. Nothing could be a more fantastic perversion of the truth. The direct effect of this Bill will be to relieve thousands of persons who have been obliged to sleep in the sitting-room from that necessity. All the new housing accommodation into which the overcrowded are to go is governed by the re-housing Section of the Act of 1930, which is incorporated in this Bill, so that every change that is made under the Bill will be a change made in the re-housing standard, which is very familiar to those who know Section 37 of

the Act of 1930. All the actual movements of families, all the new developments under this Bill, will be based on the re-housing standard, which takes no account of the living-room at all. What we are doing in this Bill is saying, "Here is a standard below which conditions are so intolerable that it is a crime against, the law to allow them to continue"; and that must be lower than the re-housing standard, which is a standard towards which we are working. This is a standard which we 'are leaving behind; the other is a standard towards which we are working.

The House will believe me when I say that the deliberations given to this matter have included a, most careful examination into the conditions of the country as a whole, and not into conditions in London only. Our conclusions have been arrived at in consultation with the associations of local authorities and with many representatives of medical officers of health, and they have been arrived at as the best we can practically enforce in the near future. As regards Yorkshire, to which a good deal of prominence has been given—I speak of Yorkshire as a typical case where sleeping downstairs is particularly disliked—this Bill does not affect that situation at all in the wrong direction. Nobody in those districts will have to sleep in the living-room because of this Bill. On the contrary, thousands of people will have their accommodation improved by reason of this Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided, Ayes, 60; Noes, 266.

Division No. 205.]
AYES.
[6.29 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell. David Rees (Glamorgan)
Paling, Wilfred


Batey, Joseph
Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Pickering, Ernest H


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cleary, J. J.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Sir Percy
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Janner, Barnett
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards. Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
White, Henry Graham


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Martin, Thomas B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mayhew, Lieut-Colonel John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Granville, Edgar
Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Greene, William P. C.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grimston, R. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morgan, Robert H.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hales, Harold K.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, William Shephard


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Bernays, Robert
Hanbury, Cecil
Munro, Patrick


Blindell, James
Hartington, Marquess of
Nall, Sir Joseph


Bossom, A. C.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Orr Ewing, J. L.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pearson, William G.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Peat, Charles U.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Penny, Sir George


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Horobin. Ian M.
Petherick, M


Broadbent, Colonel John
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Pike, Cecil F.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Remer, John R.


Carver, Major William H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Rickards, George William


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ker, J. Campbell
Runciman. Rt. Hon. Walter


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clarke, Frank
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Clarry, Reginald George
Kimball, Lawrence
Salt, Edward W.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Colman, N. C. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Selley, Harry R.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lees-Jones, John
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cooks, Douglas
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Copeland, Ida
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L
Lewis, Oswald
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Liddall, Walter S.
Soper, Richard


Cross, R. H.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Spens, William Patrick


Davison, Sir William Henry
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dickie, John P.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stones, James


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Loftus, Pierce C.
Storey, Samuel


Doran, Edward
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Drewe, Cedric
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mabane, William
Summersby, Charles H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Eimley, Viscount
McCorquodale, M. S.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Erskine-Bols, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McKeag, William
Thorp. Linton Theodore


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McKie, John Hamilton
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Magnay, Thomas
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Maitland, Adam
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)




Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Waterhoue, Captain Charles
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)



Wells, Sydney Richard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Sir Victor Warrender and Sir Walter Womersley.


Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Withers, Sir John James

6.37 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out "ten," and to insert "seven."
The issue I am raising is simple and clear, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet us in the half-way house that we are suggesting. In Committee I suggested that children under five should count as half a unit. That is the standard laid down in the Census returns. The right hon. Gentleman, however, thought that that was too low. I am now suggesting that seven should be substituted for 10. In doing so I am on firm ground, because at the age of seven a child leaves the infant's school and goes into the ordinary elementary school. I suggest that in the admittedly low standard laid down in this Clause it is not reasonable to count a boy of nine or nine and a half or a girl of that age as half a unit, and expect them to share one room. With the ideas of morality in these days that is most undesirable, and it would not be taxing the local authorities too much to ask them to regard children over seven as a whole unit and a child under seven as half a unit.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
As far as I can understand the position, the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman is to have a standard which is acceptable to the country, although it may not be the maximum standard which he himself would like to have inserted in the Bill. It will be agreed that in very many cases it is highly undesirable that a boy and a girl of 10 should occupy the same room. It may not be so in all cases, but one can easily bring to mind cases of youngsters about the age of 10 who ought not to occupy the same room, and the right hon. Gentleman might consider it advisable to protect such cases in which there might be injury caused by children of different sexes under 10 sleeping in a room where four youngsters might be sleeping at the same time. I ask him to accept the Amendment in the spirit in which it is meant. It is not intended in any way to be destructive; on
the contrary, it is hoped that it is a constructive suggestion to help the cases we have in mind.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I appreciate the friendly spirit in which the Amendment is moved, but I am afraid that we cannot accept it. We have tried to incorporate in the Bill a standard of sex separation which is generally acceptable. The great majority of standards—for instance, the Manchester standard, the Dudley standard and the Census Housing standard—lay down 10 as a proper age for the separation of the sexes, while for Improvement Areas the age of separation is 14 years, and we do not think it right to start a new principle in this Bill.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not impressed by any local standards. The Manchester standard and other standards have been quoted more than once to-day. They are the standards of local authorities who, in existing circumstances, are not making legislation, but are bound by legislation to do something a little better than is normally operative in their district. In view of the fact that there has been a good deal of discussion with regard to the adequacy of the standard of overcrowding laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, it would not be unreasonable to begin the separation of the sexes at the age of seven. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that 10 had been generally accepted, but that does not apply to school life. Normally, in public elementary schools the separation of the sexes takes place at seven, and if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to alter his general standard, it would at least ease the situation and improve the standard in one particular if he were to reduce the age of the half unit from 10 to seven. It would in many homes raise the standard a little higher. This is not a very fundamental or important Amendment, but it would be worth while in order to make a little more generous the standard which is laid down in the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 56

Division No. 206.]
AYES.
[6.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Morrison, William Shephard


Adams, Samual Vyvyan T. (Leads, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Munro, Patrick


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nall, Sir Joseph


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hales, Harold K.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nunn, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hammersley, Samuel S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Hanbury, Cecil
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Hartington, Marquess of
Pearson, William G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hartland, George A.
Peat, Charles U.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Balniel, Lord
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Petherick, M.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pike, Cecil F.


Bernays, Robert
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chetmsford)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Blindell, James
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pybus, Sir John


Bossom, A. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ramsay, T. B W. (Western Isles)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Remer, John R.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rickards, George William


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hunter Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hunter. Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Iveagh. Countess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salt, Edward W.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ker, J. Campbell
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Carver, Major William H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Selley, Harry R.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Kimball, Lawrence
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Somervell, Sir Donald


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Soper, Richard


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Leekie, J. A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Clarke, Frank
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Clarry, Reginald George
Lees-Jones, John
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Spens, William Patrick


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lewis, Oswald
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Liddall, Walter S.
Stones, James


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Storey, Samuel


Conant, R. J. E.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Strauss, Edward A.


Cooke, Douglas
Llewellin, Major John J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Copeland, Ida
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Crossley, A. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lottus, Pierce C.
Thomas. James P L. (Hereford)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Thompson, Sir Luke


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mabane, William
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dickie, John P.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Doran, Edward
McEwen Captain J. H. F.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Drewe, Cedric
McKeag, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth, George A. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Eimley, Viscount
Magnay, Thomas
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maitland, Adam
Wells, Sydney Richard


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Martin, Thomas B.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Windsor-Clive. Lieut-Colonel George


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith. James Francis Wallace
Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)
Wise, Alfred R.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Withers, Sir John James


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres



Gower, Sir Robert
Moreing, Adrian C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morgan, Robert H.
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Greene, William P. C.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Warrender.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir Percy
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Dagger, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
John, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
White, Henry Graham


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Walter Rea and Mr. Janner.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring, William Henry

CLAUSE 3.—(Offences in, relation to overcrowding.)

6.54 p.m.

Mr. CAPORN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out "living," and to insert "ordinarily resident."
This Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and myself is designed to secure what we believe the Minister intended to be carried out by the Clause. I understand that Subsection (2) was intended to provide that if a person is making a house his home on the appointed day, he shall be allowed to sleep there thereafter without committing the offence of overcrowding until such time as other accommodation can be found for the family. In order to secure that, the Clause has been drafted to say,
living there on the appointed day and thereafter continually live there.
I notice that in a new Sub-section which the right hon. Gentleman has himself put down he has used the words "normally reside." It has been held that the words "reside," "normally reside" or "resident" in a number of Acts of Parliament would cover people who were, in fact, absent from the house on any particular day provided the house was their home and that they had a bona fide intention of returning to it as their home. We are a little afraid that the word "living" which, so far as we can discover, has never received any judicial definition, might be held to be a narrower term than the words "normally reside" or the word "resident," especially having regard to the fact that the new Sub-section (4) will contain the words "normally reside"
and not "living." If the narrower interpretation were given to the word, it would follow, of course, that a wife who was absent, say, in hospital, or a child who was away living with an aunt or friend, or a father or son who was away on the appointed day far business purposes, could not thereafter sleep in the house if it thereby became over crowded. I feel certain that that cannot be the intention of the Minister, and I hope that he will accept this Amendment in order to make clear what I believe to be his intention.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.57 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): As my hon. Friend said, the word "resident" has been, if I may so put it, illuminated by a number of judicial decisions, but I think they were mostly concerned with Statutes having a quite different subject matter. There are many decisions as to the meaning of "resident" for the purposes of income tax, but that is totally different from the matters which a court would have to consider in dealing with this Bill. We think it rather an advantage that the word "living" has not been judicially construed. Clearly, the fact that somebody was away for a short visit or was in hospital would not prevent it being held that he was living in a house on the appointed day, and it would be unfortunate to encumber, as it were, the argument on this Clause by a word which has received a number of constructions, some of them artificial constructions, in other Statutes. But having said so much, I will certainly
consider the point which the hon. Member has put. I do not myself feel any danger at the moment that the courts would take the narrow view, and say that a father, mother, son or daughter who was living in the house but did not happen to sleep there on the appointed day, being away for a temporary purpose, was not an occupant of the house. The Committee will note that sleeping in the house is contrasted in the previous line with living in the house. It is really a matter of construction. We have used the word "living" and we will consider whether there is any necessity to put in words to make it clear that the narrow construction which has been suggested would be avoided. In view of that undertaking, I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The word "re side" is used in the Minister's own Amendment. Is there any distinction between the meaning of the word "resident" there and here?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In the new Sub-section the reference is not to someone normally residing in the house, but to someone who comes there by chance.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I want to refer very shortly to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). As the Clause stood originally, the word "live" would fulfil the Solicitor-General's specification. Directly you put down a proviso which brings in the word "reside," it must narrow the word "live" and give it an entirely new meaning. I suggest that the Solicitor-General should alter the word in the proviso, or alter the word "live," so as to use the same word all the way through. You cannot have two different words which tend to mean the same thing in an Act of Parliament.

Mr. CAPORN: The sole object of putting this Amendment down was to draw attention to what we felt would be a difficulty. If it is to be looked into, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, insert:
(4) Where the persons sleeping in an overcrowded house include a member of the occupier's family who does not normally reside there but is sleeping there temporarily, the occupier shall not be guilty of an offence under this Section in respect of the overcrowding of the house unless the circumstances are such that he would be so guilty if that member of his family were not sleeping in the house.
The object of this Amendment is to carry out a promise made during the Committee stage that there should be an exception in enforcing the overcrowding standard in the case of a boy or girl living away from home but returning to the house. Those who sat on the Committee will remember that it was generally felt that it would be a mistake to try to provide for every kind of exception, because it would make, among other things, a very unwieldy Bill. It was felt that the system of licence provided in Clause 5 would, in the main, enable exceptional circumstances to be met; but the Committee were still not satisfied and, therefore, my right hon. Friend promised to provide an Amendment which would not make it an offence by reason of the fact of a son serving in the Army or Navy and returning home, or a girl working out of town and coming to stay at the house. The word "temporarily" in the Amendment means that the boy or girl cannot continuously overcrowd the house by taking up normal residence there. The Amendment to this Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) rather enlarges the Amendment to an extent that evasion might be encouraged. I do not think anyone wants that. To allow a friend to come and stay for a long time would break down the whole provisions of Part I of the Bill. It would be very difficult for the courts to determine whether a particular lodger were a friend or not. If the House accepts the Amendment I now move, it will substantially deal with the points which were raised by several hon. Members in all parts of the Committee.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not rise necessarily to oppose the Amendment, because I remember the undertaking the right hon. Gentleman gave. Like the majority of Members of this House, I am
not a lawyer. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to a son or a daughter. I should like to have an explanation as to what is a member of the occupier's family. Are we speaking in terms of the Poor Law, which ranges very widely indeed, or do we mean sons or daughters of the spouses occupying the premises? I use the term "normally" in these Debates perhaps more than any other Member, but seeing that it is going into an Act I should like to have some definition as to what "normally reside" means. A member of the family "who does not normally reside"—does that mean he is working away from home and comes home at week-ends? Does it mean that he may be home three or four nights a week, but does not usually have his meals at home except at week-ends? The Parliamentary Secretary used the word "temporarily." I do not understand the technicality of the drafting of Amendments. It says:
who does not normally reside there but is sleeping there temporarily.
I should have thought if a person were not normally residing there, the word "temporarily" does not matter very much. I am not opposing this Amendment; I am only asking for the sake of clarity, because one does not want to move an addition to the Clause which is going to open the door a good deal wider than the right hon. Gentleman intended, or much wider than the undertaking he gave in Committee.

7.8 p.m.

Miss WARD: I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having fulfilled the promise made to the Committee to include some provision for visitations from members of the owner's family. The introduction of this Amendment is consistent with the conciliatory spirit which both my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary showed during the whole of the Committee stage in that they were desirous of meeting the legitimate objections of Members of the Committee to certain provisions in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has really raised the main issue, but am I to take it that the Amendment has been rather loosely drawn in order to provide for the necessary elasticity? Presumably the actual definition of the word "temporarily" is to be left to a decision
of the courts. If I remember rightly, when the discussion took place in Committee it was rather felt that if one had put in that anybody could temporarily overcrowd a house if staying there for the purpose of gain, that would more clearly have defined what the position really was. If the definition of "member of the family" is the Poor Law definition, it is very often possible for various members to stay and pay the occupier of the house for the period of their visitation. It seems to me that perhaps the Amendment is not very specifically drawn, but that, of course, may be the intention of my right hon. Friend. I gather that I am allowed to refer to the Amendment standing in my own name.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member propose to move her Amendment?

Miss WARD: Not yet.

Mr. SPEAKER: Now is the time to do it.

Miss WARD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "family," to insert "or friend."
I have no desire, nor have the hon. Friends associated with me, to be tiresome, but we feel that there is a certain feeling in the country, among a large section of the community, that even with the very best social legislation in the world, and with the very best desire to improve the social conditions of the people, we are, perhaps, a little inclined to interfere too much with the liberty of the subject. It seems a little hard that on no occasion should it be possible for the owner of a house to give a friend the offer of a bed for the night without infringing the provisions of the Bill. If there could be found some way of allowing the owner of a house to extend the ordinary rules of hospitality to anyone who might want to stay, that would, generally speaking, meet the approval, at any rate, of my party in the House.
I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to find some method of providing for that very real desire. It does savour a little of class legislation, because there is a very distinct definition in the Bill of the houses which come within the purview of it. It is possible for people who are not residing in a dwelling-house
within the meaning of the Act to overcrowd for the purposes of offering hospitality. I am not suggesting that they would be desirous of doing it for any other purpose except for a very short time, but it is possible, and I have known it happen in certain circumstances, that owners of houses have overcrowded them, possibly during holiday seasons, or for some specific reason. It does savour slightly of class legislation to prevent people who will be concerned with this Act from being able to offer a bed to a friend. I have no intention of pressing the Amendment, but I very much regret that we have not been able to find some way of including it, and I trust my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can hold out some hope that in another place he will be able to meet this very reasonable objection.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope the Minister will give the matter very serious consideration. The Amendment which the hon. Member for Wall-send (Miss Ward) moved upstairs is a much better one than the Minister's, because she defined quite clearly the class of person to whom the exemption was to apply. What is going to happen? A man of the working classes goes to see some friends and spends the evening with them. He misses the last train, or the last bus, or the last tram. The house is technically up to the limit, according to the standard of this Bill, which will then be an Act. The people wonder what is going to happen, and he says "Well, Bill, I don't mind if I shake down in the kitchen." He does that. Next morning it comes to the knowledge of an inspector, and a prosecution takes place.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member seems to imagine that there will be hordes of inspectors.

Mr. WILLIAMS: There may be. At any rate, it comes to the knowledge of the local authority and they institute a prosecution. On the first prosecution made of that kind there is going to be a local riot. It is just folly. It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary saying people will not prosecute in these circumstances. It is their duty to prosecute. It is not the business of the Parliamentary
Secretary to encourage people not to enforce a Bill he is piloting through Parliament. It is a Bill which ought to be enforced. It is creating a new offence. You ought not to have Acts of Parliament to create unnecessary offences. I am not clear about the phrase "occupier's family." I do not know whether it will be capable of a satisfactory definition. The word "friend" would, in the long run, imply anybody not normally in the house and who, quite clearly, is not paying for his night's lodging. That is the basis of what we have in mind by the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. If the Government's Amendment be put unaltered into the Bill, everybody will regard it as fussy legislation, and will become annoyed. Nothing will be gained, and the problem of overcrowding will not be solved. Overcrowding will not be brought to an end by the Government refusing to make this concession. If the Minister thinks that the words of our Amendment are too loosely drawn, perhaps he will think out words of his own, so that he can have them inserted in another place.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is there a definition of "friend"? The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) interprets it as meaning in the long run not normally in the household and not paying for lodging.

7.17 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: One or two questions have been asked about the drafting of the Clause, and I will endeavour to deal with them. A point, which in Committee I promised to look into, was whether the words "normally reside" mean the same as "live." I entirely accept the suggestion that if it means the same, the same word ought to be used. We must look into that point. With regard to the word "temporarily" and the phrase "members of the family," a legislative assembly in passing legislation is faced with the question whether it is to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of everything down to the last detail, or whether it is to use general words. Obviously the latter method is the better. If you confine this Clause to members of the family who are within the Table of consanguinity, you tie things down absolutely, whereas by using the phrase "members of the family" you allow a certain latitude. So far as I
know, it is not capable of legal definition, because a fourth cousin who has never had anything to do with his fourth cousin, might be held not to be a member of the family, whereas a fourth cousin who has been brought up with his fourth cousin might very well be held to be a member of the family. I give that as a possible illustration of the wisdom of not tying ourselves down to a sort of schedule of relatives. Similarly with "temporarily." Am I to put in "not for purposes of gain," as has been suggested? It might produce an unfortunate result. A member of the family might be home on leave, and might have the chance of a job and be willing to take it. The insertion of those words might cut him out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) inadvertently made inaccurate use of one or two phrases. She suggested that it would be impossible to offer hospitality to a friend. We are dealing only with houses which are already occupied absolutely up to the standard in the Schedule. We hope that the number will never be very large, and that it will be a diminishing number. In any legislation of this kind you can imagine hard cases. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) put an extreme case of a man missing his train, or whose motor car broke down, and an offence being committed because he spent the night in the kitchen or in the sitting-room. I am not impressed by my hon. Friend's argument that it is no good saying that the local authority will not prosecute because here is an offence against the law, and they must prosecute. We are dealing with certain conditions in our social life, and circumstances must arise of a technical breach of the law where there has been no intention or desire to break the law. There has been an accident which has for one night caused a breach of the law. I do not shrink from saying that, in those circumstances, it would be proper for a local authority, even if the offences were called to their attention, not to prosecute.
We appreciate the cases which have been brought forward in argument for the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but I suggest that they are isolated cases, and that nobody could say they are very numerous. We have come to the conclusion that the latitude which would be extended and the difficulties which
would be created by enlarging the circle of members in the family on some vague ground, or of including friends in the house not for purposes of gain, would create difficulties which might lead to evasion. The hard cases would not justify incurring those difficulties of evasion, and although I appreciate very much the way in which the Amendment has been moved, it is for the reasons I have given that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The reply of the Solicitor-General was that though the law has been technically broken, prosecutions will not happen. It is only three weeks ago that a lady was fined for driving a car to take a woman to a maternity hospital—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that has nothing to do with the Bill.

Miss WARD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

7.24 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out "receiving."
This is the first of three Amendments to Sub-section (4), which is concerned with the offence of a landlord who permits overcrowding. The question has been asked, what is the position, when a landlord has delegated to an agent the duties of looking after his property? Does the landlord become liable for an offence? That raises a point which has come before the courts on one or two occasions, and has given rise to difficult questions. If a man has delegated the management of his property to an agent and an offence has been committed, he could not say, although the knowledge of the offence was only the knowledge of the agent, that because he himself had not any knowledge of it an offence had not been committed. It was the general sense of the Committee that the liability of the landlord must be insisted upon in the Clause in order to prevent arguments and to make it clear that the knowledge of the agent was, in this case, the knowledge of the landlord.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 3, leave out "from the local authority."

In line 6, after "offence," insert:
has been served upon the landlord or his agent by the local authority."—[The Solicitor-General.]

7.27 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out "he," and to insert:
the landlord or any person effecting the letting on the landlord's behalf.
When we were discussing this question in Committee it was pointed out that the words in Sub-section (4, b) in regard to a landlord who
failed to take such steps as it was reasonably open to him to take for satisfying himself that it would not become so overcrowded,
were very bad. The Sub-section is an important one and deals with the circumstances in which a landlord shall be deemed to cause or permit a house to be overcrowded. I stated that there was great force in the objection that vague words of that kind were undesirable where the Bill was creating an offence. It was stated that the Clause should define specifically the steps which a landlord ought to take, and that failure to take them should make him guilty of an offence. As a result of three Amendments which I am moving, the inquiries which the landlord has to make are defined. In the third Amendment age and sex are included, because they are material pieces of knowledge in the circumstances. I think the three Amendments will fulfil completely the undertaking which was given in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 15, leave out from "to," to "in quiries," in line 18, and insert "make."

In line 19, after "number," insert "age and sex."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Power of local authority to authorise the temporary use of a house by persons in excess of the permitted number).

7.30 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(6) A local authority may take into consideration a seasonal increase of population in their district as an exceptional circum stance to which regard is to be had for the purposes of this Section.
This is to carry out a promise made to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp), who thought that taking a holiday was not an exceptional circumstance coming within Clause 5, and that therefore a local authority would not be able to give a licence to the occupier of a house to exceed the permitted number of persons in view of an exceptional circumstance. My hon. and learned Friend considered that the taking of a holiday was a normal form of activity in such a locality, and an Amendment was promised to make it quite clear that, for the purposes of the local authority's control of overcrowding under Clause 5, it should come within the range of exceptional circumstances.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: While I have no objection whatever to the making of some special provision with regard to holiday resorts, this Amendment seems to go much further than the understanding at which we arrived in Committee. As I understand the Parliamentary Secretary, a circumstance is to be regarded as an exceptional circumstance when it is not an exceptional circumstance, that is to say, when the town is a holiday resort and derives its livelihood from the letting of lodgings to visitors. Clearly, there is a case for making some provision with regard to this matter, but the new Subsection (6) seems to me to go a very long way, because in every other part of the Clause we are thinking of a house, not of a general dispensation. Indeed, if I remember rightly, that point was made in the Committee, and the title of the Clause relates to the use of a house. Now it is proposed to attach at the end of the Clause what will amount, in the case of every seaside place in this country and of every place that can claim to be a holiday resort, to a general dispensation given to it by the local authority whose interests are best served by giving this general dispensation.
I know that this is rather a late stage at which to make the suggestion, and, as I have said, I have no objection to the special circumstances of holiday resorts being taken into account, but, if local authorities are to be allowed, for a period not exceeding 12 months, to establish a permanent condition of overcrowding in their midst, there ought to be some central supervision. I have no objection to the local authority having a
certain discretion in this matter, but my fear is that this new Sub-section of Clause 5 will mean that the local authority will be able itself to determine that its area shall be a permanently overcrowded area. Surely that is not what the Parliamentary Secretary meant. If, indeed, the Government have promised, or are prepared to make, a concession on this point, I think that it ought to have the approval of the Department before it becomes operative.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am afraid I did not make my meaning plain. Although we were pressed to give a general dispensation, we thought it better to deal with the question by a particular licence in respect of a particular house—

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but, as 1 have pointed out, the new Sub-section will allow the local authority to make a general dispensation, while the whole meaning of the Clause is against a general dispensation by the local authority.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is only in respect of a particular habitation occupied by a particular occupier, and therefore I do not think it can be described as a general dispensation. With regard to the suggestion that it would allow of a permanent state of overcrowding, I would point out that the provisions of Clause 5 will still apply. The new Subsection will give power to grant an application for a licence lasting up to a year, in view of the particular circumstances of the applicant, and therefore it cannot possibly lead to a permanent state of overcrowding.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am sorry to interrupt again. I am not trying to make any kind of capital out of this; it is merely for purposes of clarity. A local authority could give a licence for 12 months, could give it again for the next 12 months, and yet again for the succeeding 12 months, so that in fact it would be permanent.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that holiday resorts are in rather a different position from ordinary towns, and it would be very hard to prevent visitors from going there. In the Bill a general principle is laid down, and in Clause 5 a very reasonable exception is provided for. The ex-
ception applies to holiday resorts, but only in the case of working-class houses where visitors are taken. It is vitally necessary that there should be some control over those houses, but it is necessary that at certain seasons of the year the local authority should be able to say to the occupier of such a house that, if the ordinary number of persons that he is permitted to have in his house is x, in these exceptional circumstances, say in July, August and September, it shall be x 1. That seems to me to be a very reasonable thing to do.

7.39 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I do not want to.press this point, but I think it is right that we should ask the Solicitor-General also to give his attention to it. I am not in the least objecting to the general purpose for which the hon. Gentleman is contending; the only question is as to what the Clause will mean with these words in it. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that this new Sub-section will give a general meaning to Sub-section (1) of the Clause. Sub-section (1) is intended to operate with regard to an individual dwelling-house, but it would appear, or at all events I suggest that it might appear, that these new words might be used to give a sort of collective dispensation. Therefore, I would ask the Solicitor-General whether, notwithstanding the general words in the first line of the new Sub-section, the final words.
to which regard is to be had for the purposes of this Section.
will mean that it will still relate to individual applications, or, in other words, that the provision will not be of a general character? With regard to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), that a dispensation may be given for any period not exceeding 12 months, clearly, if a licence can be given for 12 months, it can scarcely be in respect of a seasonal increase in population, seeing that it would involve the whole year. Therefore, I shall be glad if the Solicitor-General will tell us what is implied by the word "seasonal," which clearly must be some thing different from 12 months If there is any dubiety, I suggest that words ought to be inserted to limit the period for which the licence may be given—say to provide for its being reviewed after the lapse of a month—or that, when a
local authority propose to make a dispensation of this kind, they should be required to seek the consent of the Minister, or something of that kind. Without in the least desiring to be obstructive, I feel that we should have a correct interpretation of what the Clause will mean with these words in it.

7.43 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I think it is right to point out that during the Committee stage this matter was fully discussed, and the right hon. Gentleman then raised no objection—

Dr. ADDISON: I am not objecting; I am asking what it means.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid the Noble Lord did not listen to my speech.

Earl WINTERTON: The two right hon. Gentlemen having already spoken, perhaps I might be permitted to say a word. During the Committee stage, after a full discussion of the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), the Solicitor-General used these words:
My right hon. Friend has said that it is the clear intention that the Clause should be capable of being used for covering the point raised by the Mover of the Amendment, and, if owing to these words, it is not, or might not be, possible to use it for that purpose, my right hon. Friend will certainly undertake to introduce an Amendment on Report to see that it should be.
There was a very friendly discussion in the Committee, in the course of which a number of individual cases were referred to, and I think there was no doubt as to what was in the mind of the Committee.

7.44 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As my Noble Friend has said, this point was discussed very fully upstairs, but I make no complaint of the fact that it has been raised here. I should like to tell the House just how the discussion arose. The Clause deals with cases in which, during the months of July, August and September, very large numbers of people go to certain places for their holidays. Clearly that is a case which ought to be dealt with, and Clause 5 is in the Bill to deal with it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) referred to a very narrow construction that had been put on the words
"exceptional circumstances" where they occurred in other Statutes in a rather different context—

Mr. THORP: My hon. and learned Friend will forgive me; the words in that case were "special occasion."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The word "special" applies both to occasions and to circumstances. It was suggested that the principle in that case, applied to this Bill, might lead the courts to say that the localities with which we are concerned would not be entitled to consider a large influx of holiday visitors as a special circumstance. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head, but that is the context in which I am giving my explanation. We said we would make it quite clear that the words "exceptional circumstances" in the Bill should not include a circumstance such as that. That being the purpose of the Amendment, it is obvious that it was not our intention to enlarge, and the Amendment does not contain anything which would enlarge, the powers of the Clause; it simply extends the matters which the local authority may consider. As regards the word "seasonal," if my right hon. Friend will look at the wording of the Amendment he will see that the words are:
take into consideration a seasonal in crease of population…as an exceptional circumstance.
All that that means is, that when they are operating Sub-section (1), which gives them power to grant individual licences for special circumstances they may take into account the seasonal flow of visitors. That, I think, further answers the second question put by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether this entitles them to give a licence for a year. The answer is clearly "No," because no one could apply for a licence based on the fact that there was a. seasonal flow of visitors for any other period than that during which the seasonal flow continued.

Mr. FLEMING: In the holiday season.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In the holiday season, or whatever clearly is seasonal in practice. I was asked as to the position every successive year, and as far as that is concerned it will be dealt with by the local authority in the same way as any special circumstances.

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is continuing special circumstances.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is continuing special circumstances operating for a limited period during successive years. One imagines that if a particular occupier of a working-class house obtained a licence for two lodgers for the holiday season, it would be right that she should get a, licence the following season. She would have to apply each year.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. THORP: What my hon. and learned Friend has said with regard to this Amendment coincides with my recollection and view of the undertaking given upstairs. I did not raise this question in any objectionist spirit or in any other spirit than that of wishing to ensure that when the Bill became an Act there should be no question and difficulty as to what the position was to be with regard to the big influx at seaside and other places in the Summer season. I pointed out that, as a matter of drafting, it might be regarded as impossible for the local authority to give a licence for the number of persons accommodated in a house to be increased because it might be said that there were no exceptional circumstances involved owing to the fact that a great many people went to the seaside for a summer season, and that that was rather the rule than the exception, and that if these words were read in conjunction with the condition preceding of the power of the local authority under Clause 5 with regard to licences, some captious person might take advantage of the local authority. Having raised that question rather on the technical construction of the Clause as it stood, my hon. and learned Friend said that he Would look into it, and I think that the words proposed in the Amendment meet the case.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General a question. I am not, as the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) assumed, opposing the Amendment in the least. The Amendment says, "a seasonal increase of population," and is it assumed that there is one season in the year? I am still in difficulty as to the period of the year for which licences may be granted. Most of the popular seaside resorts have seasons in the sense that they become overcrowded at Christmas, the New Year,
Easter, Whitsuntide and the summer months and so on. I raise this question in order to suggest that the Solicitor-General should look at the Clause again before it goes finally through this House.

7.50 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that these words exactly carry out the intention, as I understood it, of the Committee. "Seasonal" means that in order to bring yourself within the Clause you have to show an increase of population relating to the season. We do not in this country go in very much for winter resorts, but there are places to which people resort at Christmas for a shortened period. It would cover either of those circumstances. What it does not cover, is the place which is equally popular throughout the year. If there are any such places to which people go equally throughout the year clearly they would not be held to be places to come within the provisions of this Clause. The Clause simply applies to places where there is at one season or another for a limited period of the year an exceptional influx of people. We think that the Amendment satisfies the general desire of the Committee upstairs, and we hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Entries in rent books, information and certificates with respect to the permitted number.)

7.51 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert:
An occupier of a dwelling-house who is required by an officer of the local authority duly authorised in that behalf to produce for inspection by the authority any rent book or similar document which is being used in relation to the house and is in the custody of the occupier or under his control shall, on being so required as aforesaid or within seven days thereafter, produce any such book or document to the officer or at the offices of the authority, and if he fails so to do he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds.
A promise was given in the Committee stage on this matter, and the Amendment fulfils that promise. Clause 6 provides that every rent book or similar document used in relation to a dwelling-house shall contain certain prescribed statements, broadly speaking, relating to the law of overcrowding as laid down in Part I of the Act, and also the permitted number
of persons, and if a rent book or similar document does not contain the information it is made an offence. Some hon. Members said that the local authority had no power to require the production of the rent book, and we promised on the Report stage to put the matter right. The Amendment gives the local authority access and makes it an offence if, after the expiration of seven days, the occupier does not produce the rent book or similar document.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Duty of landlord to inform local authority of overcrowding.)

7.52 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, to leave out "on or."
This Amendment goes with a further Amendment—in page 6, line 43, after "which," insert "existed on the appointed day, or"—so that the proviso will read,
Provided that this section shall not apply to overcrowding which existed on the appointed day, or has been notified to the landlord.
This matter arose out of a discussion in Committee, and my right hon. Friend accepted the view that it was unnecessary to require a landlord to notify the local authority on the appointed day. That information normally will, at any rate, be in their possession already, and it is not an offence under the Bill, and therefore it seemed to be oppressive and to give unnecessary trouble to everybody. That being so the words "on or" in the first line of the Clause are being omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, after "dwelling-house," insert "or of his agent."
This Amendment is really consequential on Amendments moved to Clause 3 to make clear the position between the landlord and his agent.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 37, after "overcrowded," insert:
then, unless notice thereof has already been given to the local authority.

In line 37,leave out "he," and insert "the landlord or his agent, as the case may be."

In line 39, leave out "the local authority," and insert "them."

In line 43, after "which," insert "existed on the appointed day, or."

In line 43,after "landlord," insert "or to his agent."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Enforcement of foregoing provisions.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, leave out "a," and insert "the."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to

CLAUSE 12.—(Definitions for purposes of provisions relating to overcrowding.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, at the end, to insert:
and includes, in relation to an occupier of a dwelling-house who holds under a contract of employment under which the provision of the house for his occupation forms part of his remuneration, this employer, and 'agent' means, in relation to the landlord of a dwelling-house a person who collects rent in respect thereof on behalf of the landlord or is authorised by him so to do, or, in the case of a dwelling-house occupied by a person who holds as aforesaid, a person who pays remuneration to the occupier on behalf of the employer or is authorised by him so to do.
This Amendment of the definition Clause deals with two matters. The first part of the Amendment deals with the case where the employer provides a tied house as part of the remuneration or consideration in respect of the services rendered. As the Bill was originally drafted, the word "landlord" did not cover that case, and the Committee upstairs thought that it was right that it should, and my right hon. Friend agreed. The second part of the Amendment deals with the agent who is defined in the Amendment as the person who collects rent on behalf of the landlord or is authorised by him.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN: I raised this point on the Committee stage, and I am very glad that the Solicitor-General and the Government have moved the Amendment. I said that the words in the Bill originally were either too simple or too good to be true, and this more complicated definition, I think, adequately meets the point. "Landlord" is a difficult term to define, but now we know that it is the immediate tenant or the
sub-tenant who is to collect the rent, and I think that that adequately meets the point.

Amendment agreed to.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 22, to leave out from "being," to "a," in line 23.
The Committee will see that this is a definition Clause. The definition of "suitable alternative accommodation" is satisfied if the house is provided by a local authority, but, if it is not provided by a local authority, it must be certified.
to be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family as respects security of tenure and proximity to place of work and to be suitable in relation to his means.
During the discussion upstairs it was thought unwise to differentiate in the definition between a, house provided by a local authority and a house provided by private enterprise, and it is thought better that in each case the local authority should certify that the alternative accommodation provided is suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family, etc., etc.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Re-development plan.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 10, line 6, leave out from "on," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
all statutory undertakers owning apparatus in that area.
The Amendment leaves out certain words which it is unnecessary now to keep in the Bill by reason of the fact that we have inserted a definition of statutory undertakers.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Purchase of land for the purposes of re-devolopment.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 12, line 6, leave out from "or," to "and," in line 8, and to insert:
is the property of statutory undertakers, having been acquired by them for the purposes of their undertaking.
The reason for this Amendment is exactly the same as for the last. It is owing to the fact that we have now a definition of statutory undertakers.

Amendment agreed to.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in page 12, line 19, after "person," to insert:
or exchanged for other land which the local authority have power to acquire, either with or without paying or receiving money for equality of exchange.
I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, which is not a matter startling in importance, but may be a matter of very considerable convenience. At the moment the local authority which acquires land for the purpose of providing new houses is able to exchange that land for adjoining land which is more convenient, but a local authority which acquires land in connection with housing but not directly for the purpose of building new houses is unable to exchange that land. It might be very convenient if, for instance, a factory site which was just outside the area could be brought inside by an exchange of land. The sole object of this Amendment is to enable a local authority which has bought land not directly for the purpose of building houses to exchange it for other land outside where that would be convenient. I understand that the Minister looks on this Amendment favourably, and I have pleasure in moving.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.5 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member explained this Amendment with great fairness. I think that it would be a useful addition to the powers of the Bill, and I propose to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Central Housing Advisory Committee.)

8.6 p.m.

Sir GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 20, line 34, after "Committee," to insert:
of whom one member shall be a representative of the Society of Women Housing Estate Managers.
This Amendment refers to the constitution of the Central Housing Advisory Committee in which very important functions are reposed by Clause 24 of the Bill. But the Bill as it has come back from Committee leaves the Minister free
and unfettered discretion as to the number and personnel of this important Committee. I can understand the repugnance in the House to fettering unduly that discretion. On the other hand, in the Clause as it now stands Parliament delegates very important responsibilities to the Minister and one is not always certain of the attitude of the Minister towards the people whom he is going to choose for this Committee, and it is a matter of great importance to the House and to the country that there should be good types of various interests on this Committee and that people who are particularly competent to give expert opinion to the Committee should be represented there. The Society which is named in my Amendment is a national organisation of women who have received very complete technical training in the business of housing management. They have over 200 members and they carry on the torch first lighted by Miss Octavia Hill in 1865. They manage something like 2,000 tenancies on Crown lands, 2,500 under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and something like 6,000 tenancies under public utility societies. Since 1927 a consider able number of municipalities have also employed them on this work. So distinguished has the success of the members of the society been that persons come from as far away as Sweden and the United States of America to learn their methods and members of the society are employed overseas and in training women in the Colonies and Dominions. The utility of their services has been testified to and recommended by the members of the Moyne Commission.
The purpose of having women estate managers is that as collectors women deal with women and you get the rent collector as something more than an economic personage entering the house. The collectors are the people who are responsible for repairs, decorations and reconditioning. They select and allocate the tenancies. They are not sentimental but business women, very highly trained, usually surveyors, with certificates and a very practical training in estate management. It is found that there are less arrears in respect of their tenancies than with regard to most. It is in fact a new profession for which women are peculiarly suitable.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): That may be absolutely accurate, but I hardly think it rises on this particular Amendment which has to do only with the Central Advisory Committee.

Sir G. HURST: Perhaps I may ask your forgiveness, because I have already said what I wanted to say about their qualifications. I am only anxious that the House should know about the type of society which I wish to be represented here. In moving this Amendment, I hope that, if the Minister does not see his way to waive the present width of discretion, he will hold out some hopes to us.

8.11 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to second the Amendment.
May I just add one reason why I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment to those which have been so well put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst). It is not merely that the organisation has all the qualifications that he has stated, but it would be peculiarly valuable if we were certain that there would be on that Committee some persons who were specially interested in the problem of allocation and management. It always seems to me a curious fact that the whole side of the housing problem which deals with the allocation and management of houses excites so much less interest than questions relating to the production of houses. As a member myself for 25 years of a housing committee which has perhaps done more of the kind of housing which comes under this Bill than most, I am convinced that a large part of the difficulty in the housing problem arises not merely from the shortage of houses but from the careless, unscientific method of allocating houses, so that the wrong people get into the houses and the right people do not. These particular people have peculiar experience in this matter. I will not keep the Committee longer, but that to my mind is the strongest reason for the acceptance of the Amendment. I feel that this is a side of the housing problem that is persistently and consistently ignored. We hear extraordinarily little about it in the discussions on housing in this House. Discussion always relates
to the putting up of houses rather than to whom exactly you should give the houses when you have put them up. I am very much afraid that most people who get on the committee will give their attention as usual to the big problem of building houses rather than to the equally important problem of allocating houses.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I always try to op- pose these Amendments that there should be one woman on a particular committee on principle. I have a higher view of the status of women in our political life than the hon. Lady who has just spoken. She has worked for a good part of her life for the complete equality of women, and she is always coming here to ask the House to grant her some petty privilege.

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: The Amendment says:
a representative of the Society of Women Housing Estate Managers;
not necessarily a woman.

Miss RATHBONE: May I draw attention to the fact that I did not stress the question of the appointment of a woman. That was quite secondary. The point was that it was to be a trained housing estate manager.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I am very glad to have that statement from the hon. Lady. My object in opposing the Amendment is that there ought to be the best people appointed to these committees, whether women or men. My blood boils when I see these little Amendments asking that one woman should be on this or that committee.

8.16 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I am glad to support the Amendment on principle, but obviously the proper place for such an Amendment would be in Subsection (2). I am afraid that the Minister may say that it is not right to make it a statutory obligation that there should be one particular kind of appointment to the Committee and that it should be left to the Minister. I agree, if the Minister was always going to be the present Minister, bat one of the most unfortunate indiscretions of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was that he was sick of the name of Octavia Hill. After such an expression of opinion he would not, presumably, be
in sympathy with such a proposal, if he were Minister. Therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend will go out of his way and do the opposite of what he probably proposes to do, and accept the Amendment.

8.17 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: Let me say how warmly I agree with the mover of the Amendment, and the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) as to the great importance they attach to management as part of good housing administration. I hope that this Bill vindicates that principle and I hope that it will lead to a new phase in that respect. The woman manager is one of the bright hopes. I recognise that the Society of Women Housing Estate Managers is a most admirable organisation, which gives a local habitation and name to this most beneficial development of housing administration, hut I do not think it would be right to begin to legislate as to the particular members of the Committee. If we did that, the only possible thing that we could do would be to set up some form of Schedule, and do not think it would be an advantage to try and form such a Schedule on Report. However, and this may meet my hon. Friends, I will undertake to give full consideration to the representations made to-night on behalf of the Society of Women Housing Estate Managers when it comes to the formation of the Committee.

Sir G. HURST: On behalf of those associated with me, I thank the Minister for what he has said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 20, line 34, after "Committee," to insert:
of whom one member shall be nominated by the organisations representing the profession of estate agents.
I do not move the Amendment in the expectation that the Minister will accept it, but primarily for the purpose of raising briefly the issue of what character this central committee is going to have. We can approach the appointment of a committee of this sort in two ways. We can try to get a number of public-spirited men and women and ask them to serve on this central housing advisory Committee. The other method is to set out
to try and collect together a number of people who are technical experts, under the chairmanship of someone not necessarily a technical expert but one who takes a wide view of public affairs. There is a good deal to be said for both classes, but in this case there is probably something to be said for having a Committee drawn from people who are technically experts. When the Minister is appointing the Committee he might seek, for example, the assistance of one of the bodies representing the municipal organisations and from them obtain the services of someone who has had lengthy experience as chairman of a housing committee. He might possibly get someone from the architects. If the Committee is going to be built up in that way there is a body of people who have experience in these matters, namely the estate agents, who might be represented. I move the Amendment in the hope of inducing the Minister to give us some general explanation of what is in his mind in regard to the matter. Some other Minister may have to make the future appointments, but the right hon. Gentleman will be responsible for the first appointments. Therefore, it is what is in his mind that matters.

Sir G. HURST: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for the purpose of eliciting the statement to which my hon. Friend has referred.

8.23 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I feel a little doubtful whether my abilities are equal to the task put upon me by my hon. Friend. He wants me to give the House an account of the right principles for the constitution of such an advisory committee as that proposed in the Bill. I recognise the value of both the elements to which he has referred, the element of representatives of special types with knowledge and experience and also the importance of selecting for this very important duty those of outstanding gifts for the task which we have in hand. One would hope to find the right via media between them. As regards the Amendment, I would apply to it the same remarks as I did to the last Amendment, that we ought rot to make any statutory obligations with regard to appointments to the committee,
but I will give full consideration to the very important institution named in the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Gentleman's promise is not to appoint but to consider the appointment of representatives from such bodies.

Sir H. YOUNG: When I am consider ing the constitution of the committee I will certainly take into consideration the particular institutions mentioned.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I am interested to hear the last statement. The first Amendment asked for the appointment of a representative of the Society of Women Housing Estate Managers, and another hon. Member now asks for a representative of the estate agents. We had better ask the Minister to think about the brick burners, the bricklayers, the slaters, the clay diggers, the joiners, the window-makers, the plumbers. If hon. Members are going to make requests repeatedly from their angle we ought to make requests from our angle. I hope that the Minister will not bother his mind very much about these double-dyed experts but that he will think about the practical men who understand the job better than a lot of experts.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: After what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 25.—(Power to establish Housing Management Commissions.)

8.25 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in page 21, line 25, after "houses" to insert:
or with respect to the administration of re-development areas.
I am not clear what the intention of the Bill is as at present drafted, whether a housing management commission may be appointed for the administration of a re-development area before it has been developed. The difficulty arises on the words:
other buildings or land provided in connection with such houses.
In the case of re-development areas while the whole re-development is going on working-class houses do not yet exist and cannot be regarded as working-class
houses which have been provided by the local authority. I hope the Minister will explain his intentions in the matter.

8.20 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not sure that I apprehend the Noble Lord's point, but, if I do, the answer is that the powers under the Bill will extend and apply to local management commissions only in respect of the management of a property provided it is the property of the local authority. The management commissioners will not have any functions before houses are ready for occupation, but they would have functions as regards any of the houses which are the property of the local authority.

8.27 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: A re-development area which has been acquired by a local authority may contain working-class houses and also property which is not working-class houses. That area is to be re-developed in connection with the main purpose of providing working-class houses. Is the housing management commission only to be able to enter into operation when the area has been developed or can it be used by the local authority as its public utility agent—

Mr. TINKER: On a point of Order. Has the Noble Lord the right to speak twice on the same Amendment on Report stage?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In the case of a Bill which has been committed to a Committee upstairs, the hon. Member in charge of the Bill has the right and the hon. Member who moves an Amendment has the right to make a. speech in reply. That rule does not apply to any other hon. Member.

Lord E. PERCY: Will the housing management commission be able to administer a redeveloped property bacause it is the property of the local authority, or will it only enter into its function when working class houses have been built on the property, or in so far as working-class houses have been built on the property which has been otherwise developed?

8.29 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I understand better now the question of the Noble Lord. The housing commission will have no functions except in regard to houses provided for the occupation of wage earners.
They will not have functions as regards the development of the property or as regards any other property except houses for wage earners. As regards their functions for wage earners they will begin only when the houses are in occupation.

Lord E. PERCY: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but may I say that I cannot understand the meaning of the words:
And other buildings or land provided in connection with such houses.

Sir H. YOUNG: I will give consideration to the matter in order to make quite certain what are the functions of the housing commissioners. As regards the point of substance, their functions will be as I have described.

Amendment negatived.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in page 21, line 33, at the end, to insert:
Provided that such scheme shall also make provision for the dissolution of the Commission as from the expiration of a period of three months from the date on which the local authority, by resolution, determine that it is expedient that the Commission should be dissolved, for the re-vesting in the local authority of property vested in the Commission at the date of such dissolution, and for such other incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as may be necessary or proper to give effect to such dissolution.
Unlike other Amendments which have been discussed this is of considerable importance and contains a matter of great principle. Under Clause 25 a local authority may set up a housing management commission to take over the management of working class houses built by the authority. We cannot discuss whether this is necessary or not but it seems to be quite unnecessary because local authorities, in fact, now appoint a number of experts under their control to look after houses which are built. The real dangerous feature of the Clause is that once a local authority has proposed a scheme for the setting up of such a housing commission and the Minister has passed it, there is no power to dissolve the housing management commission, however incompetent it may be, and no matter to what extent it operates contrary to public opinion in the area. That is an undesirable and unprecedented proposition. I know of no other example in local government of a specific function
which a local authority undertakes being taken away from that authority and handed over to an irresponsible body, that is, a body not responsible to the ratepayers in the area, and the local authority having no power to bring back under its own control the powers and functions which have been handed over in this way. We propose that where a housing management commission has been established by a local authority, that the same authority, if it desires, shall have the power of bringing back to itself the powers and functions given to the housing commission, and may dissolve the commission. Anyone who has any respect for democratic institutions and the responsibility of local authorities to the people in their area will admit that this is a reasonable proposal.
The dangers of the Clause are considerable. I very much doubt whether an efficient local authority will set up such a housing commission, because if they are efficient in house building they will also be efficient in looking after their own estates. An authority that can build houses can also look after those houses when they are built. It may be that there are some authorities doubtful of their powers, or more particularly an authority which is unpopular in its area and fears that after a coming election it may be turned out of office. It may have strong ideas as to the management of houses under its control. Such an authority might set up a housing management commission to take control of the houses built by the local authority in the area. Then after an election it may be that there is an entirely different local authority, with a different outlook altogether on all questions affecting housing. The housing management commission will be entirely out of sympathy with the views of the local authority. You will therefore get an intolerable position. Unless the Amendment is accepted in principle, there will be no getting over that position, and plainly the local authority will not continue to build working-class houses if it knows that after they are built they are to be handed over to a group of people who, in the view of the local authority, will mismanage those houses. Indeed the Minister in Committee pointd out how
essential it was that the local authority should act in concert with the commission. On 12th March last he said:
From the fact that the housing commissioners are responsible to and appointed by the local authority, the Committee will perceive that it is essential that the two bodies should pull together and work in co-operation, that the local authorities should not look upon the management commissions as hostile bodies imposed upon them by an outside force in an unsympathetic and overriding manner. If they were at arm's length I am sure the experiment—because it is an experiment—would be fore doomed to failure."—[Standing Committee A, OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1935; col. 286.].
It may well be that these commissioners will be appointed for five or 10 or 15 years, and during this period there will be chaos in the district. Houses will not be built and there will be no way of getting over the difficulty. The members of the management commission may not be competent, or they may be thoroughly unpopular and the whole feeling of the area may be against them. Yet unless there is this Clause in the contract of their establishment there will be no way of getting rid of them. Moreover, these housing management commissions will have immense power locally. Not only will they be able to control the rents of the houses, but indirectly they will affect the rates of the locality. It may be that the commissioners would consider it desirable for one reason or another to reduce the rents of the houses very considerably, and no one would be able to stop them, as far as I can see. If the rents are reduced it means, of course, that the rates are put up. And these people have no responsibility at all to the people in the area. They have not been elected in the first place; they have just been appointed by the local authority on any ground which the local authority may consider desirable.
We want to see included in Clause 25 a definite condition of their appointment, and the condition is that on any occasion on which the local authority so desires it will be able, at three months' notice, to dissolve the housing management commission. I cannot see what arguments can be brought against such a reasonable proposal. If a local authority is able to establish a body, surely it should be empowered to dissolve that body if it finds that the experiment has proved unsuccessful. It
is no use waiting for five or ten years, when the time of their appointment has ended, because by that time irreparable damage may have been done to the cause of house-building in that area.. The Amendment gives an essential power to local authorities. If the commissioners go too far and make themselves unpopular or intolerable, they can be turned out. This will bring about an indirect but certain connection between their activities and the people of the locality. Unless such an Amendment is carried the action of the Government in setting up these commissioners can produce no such desirable result. I doubt whether any decent local authority will set up such commissioners, but if, unwisely, they do so, it will be contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy, as we know them in this country, and contrary to all that is best in our local government system.

8.43 p. m

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is no enthusiasm on these benches for Part II of this Bill, and I might as well make that quite clear at once. With regard to the commissions set up by Clause 25, I think the arguments of my hon. Friend are convincing. There should be something included in this Clause to enable a local authority to get rid of one of these bodies if in any given area it should not be functioning satisfactorily.

8.44 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss) put his case as clearly as ever, but I know he will not be surprised if I say, on behalf of the Government, that I cannot accept the Amendment. The fundamental principles of democracy that are called into question are on the other side on this issue, and I should like to stand up for them. Let us see what we are really doing in this business of the commissioners. We are instituting a purely voluntary system. I am sure that that is quite clear to the House. No local authority is under any obligation whatever to adopt this method of administration of its publicly-owned estates, unless it pleases to do so. I believe that probably the housing management commission is an institution for which immediate use will be found in certain directions and that
experience will lead to its increasing use. Let me also call the attention of the House to the fact that the plan of the Bill is to give the greatest possible freedom to local authorities in establishing these schemes. We have laid down no provision in the Bill as to what those schemes should be. We only give a general indication of what they are to include and then we do, what I regard as the sensible and the democratic thing, in that we give the fullest power to the local authority who fill up the skeleton by making provision for their own needs. I cannot see what reason there can be for an arbitrary distinction in favour of the particular provision embodied in the Amendment. There is ample power in Clause 25, as it is drafted, to include in the scheme for a housing management commission, provisions relating to the termination of the Commission and a provision such as that indicated in the Amendment might be included in a scheme.

Major MILNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate where that is to be found in the Clause?

Sir H. YOUNG: Generally speaking, I think it is implied particularly in paragraph (g) of Sub-section (2) which refers to the re-vesting of property in a local authority in the event of the dissolution of a commission. I have no doubt that includes a power for the dissolution of a commission if the local authority chooses to do so. What reason can there be for binding their hands in this particular rather than in any other particular? I suggest that to do so would be definitely undemocratic and contrary to the spirit of confidence in the local authorities which we desire to encourage in this matter. I think we ought to seek to maintain the principle of elasticity, of voluntary exercise of powers and of the greatest possible degree of freedom for local authorities, which has been our guiding principle in drafting this Clause. The acceptance of this Amendment would be an infringement of that principle and would be contrary to those very good characteristics of the existing scheme which I have indicated.

8.48 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: We have had an interesting revelation of the mind of the Minister, and I hope that my hon. Friends will take careful note of it.
According to the right hon. Gentleman's understanding, apparently, it is in keeping with the true principles of democracy that a local authority should be able to divest itself of the ownership of houses, paid for out of public funds and vest that ownership in an ad hoc body and that it should never be able to take that property back again even if it wants to do so. I must state frankly and with the greatest emphasis that the party to which I belong repudiate entirely that interpretation of the Minister's and I confidently prophesy that if ever we are in a position to repeal this atrocity, we shall certainly get rid of it. What is it that we are asked to do in this Clause? Here we have houses built at the public expense and let to the people of a locality and it is proposed to hand over to these commissions the power to assess rents and to inflict it may be all kinds of blunders upon the unfortunate tenants and there is no guarantee that there will be any appeal of any sort. The local authority may be required to look on helplessly while their own estates are being mismanaged by these people.
The Minister says that there may be something in a scheme to provide against that contingency. It may be true that a scheme can provide for the dissolution of a commission which proves recalcitrant. But the House of Commons before authorising public authorities to part with property, for which it has found a large share of the money, ought to be assured that each scheme will necessarily contain a provision of that kind. When the National Government sought to remove unemployment from politics by setting up a national assistance board a friend of mine said, "They may remove unemployment from Westminster but they will take it into Trafalgar Square." I think the same remark applies to this proposal. The local authority which attempts to divest itself of its responsibilities in regard to these houses, and the solicitudes and anxieties of the tenants of these houses, will be subject to a sad disillusionment just as the National Government has been disillusioned in regard to the regulations about unemployment assistance.
Having had at one time responsibility for the Ministry of Health and having had a good deal to do with legislation I
can say that I have never seen a proposal in any Act of Parliament more entirely undemocratic than the proposal in this Clause or one which is more certain to lead to trouble. The only comfort one bas is that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss)—that no self-respecting authority will set up one of these bodies. The trouble is that the authorities who will want to shuffle off their responsibilities to people of this kind are those very authorities whom it is most desirable to retain in active relationship with the Ministry of Health, in connection with the management of their estates. The very last authorities who ought to be encouraged to divest themselves of responsibility will be the authorities, if any, who will try to do this kind of thing. I cannot imagine any reason for not accepting the Amendment which only requires that a scheme should embody some provision which will enable the local authority to bring the experiment to an end if they want to do so. It seems entirely reasonable and justified by every consideration of public policy. I cannot imagine the British Government in respect of any of its own Departments handing over its responsibilities in perpetuity to somebody who was not responsible either to them or to Parliament. But that is what we propose that local authorities should do in regard to housing—on which we are paying, in the aggregate, several millions of pounds a year of subsidy. We shall certainly carry this Amendment to a Division and we shall oppose the proposal in the Clause both in the House and outside with all the power at our command.

8.55 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman referred us to Sub-section (2, g) as containing a provision which he thought would meet the point of the Amendment. I think his reference would possibly be satisfactory if the Sub-section in question provided that a scheme "shall make provision" with respect to the matters set out in the paragraphs instead of merely providing that the scheme "may" make such provision. A local authority might endeavour to prejudice its successors by trying to make provision for the appointment of a housing management commission permanent. I suggest that we might save ourselves a lot of time if it could be
arranged that a scheme must provide for some arrangement to bring the delegation of powers to an end if that delegation should either prove unsatisfactory in operation or be against the wishes of the successors of the particular authority that made the arrangement. I put this to the Solicitor-General: Would the case be met by substituting "shall" for "may" in Sub-section (2), line 34? If not, I shall be forced to support the Amendment.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I was very much impressed by what the Minister said a few moments ago. On the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that we disliked Clause 25 entirely, and that we should fight it on the Floor of the House and in Committee upstairs. We have fought it all along the line. On the Second Reading the Minister said, "Well, a local authority may if they choose, but they are not bound to do it." He let the cat out of the bag unconsciously and very nicely. This is a baby of Fascism, bred in the bowels of the Ministry of Health. It is handing over the democratic control of a local authority to somebody who is not responsible to the people, and the Minister gets up to-night and is proud that a lot of the local authorities will adopt the provision. Previously he said, "Well, there is no harm in this; it is only a little ewe lamb. They may if they like." Our point is that if they may do it, why should they not have the power to undo it? There is the true spirit of democracy in the Amendment. The Minister of Health is looking at it, not in the spirit of democracy, but in the spirit of an infant Hitler. We can never expect the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to accept anything that we put forward as an Amendment.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: He has just accepted one Amendment.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: He has not accepted this one. I am satisfied that, so far as this overcrowding Bill is concerned, it is not as popular as some people think, and the more it is explained in the country, the more satisfied I am that it will not help the National Government when they go to the country, but it will be of great assistance to us. We ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude on this Amendment and allow it to be inserted in the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I did not expect the Minister to accept the Amendment, but I regret that he did not answer the arguments which have been advanced in in favour. He said that this is quite a voluntary Measure, which local authorities can adopt or not as they like. That is all very well. A scheme agreed to by the Ministry may establish one of these housing management commissions for 20 years, and while it may be quite voluntary for the particular authority that adopts the scheme at the time, that authority may be within a year of being turned out of office as hopelessly incompetent, and for the remaining 19 years it will be compulsory on its successors to build their houses under the burden of a housing management commission to whom they may be hostile. The Minister did not deal with that point, nor did he deal with the other very important point, namely, the necessity of there being good feeling and co-operation between a local authority and A housing management commission. Suppose they are at daggers drawn and have an entirely different outlook. How will the local authority control the situation? The Minister did not answer that question at all. It will be helpless to do so unless a Clause is inserted in the scheme, as we ask, to the effect that the local authority, representing the views of the people of the area, should be able to dissolve the housing management commission if and when it desires to do so. That is a fundamental point which remains unanswered by the Minister.
What is proposed by the Government is very similar to the position which the House of Commons would occupy if it had been suggested that the Unemployment Assistance Board set up by this Government could not be dissolved by any future Parliament, but should be an established institution for 20 or 25 years. Should we not all have been indignant and have regarded such a position as impossible? If one day we found the Unemployment Assistance Board working in a manner that was contrary to the public interest, or that it was an anachronism or was for any other reason undesirable, we must be free to abolish it; and a local authority that adopts a housing management commission should be in exactly the
same position if some years afterwards it should desire to dissolve that commission.
I agree with my hon. Friend who spoke just now in thinking that the whole movement for the establishment of these housing management commissions, which is not an isolated example, is really sinister. It is part and parcel of the movement which we have seen recently, fostered by the National Government, of which the establishment of the Unemployment Assistance Board is an example, to take matters of prime importance to the people completely out of the hands of their elected representatives. In the same way as it is thought undesirable by the Government to leave the question of poverty in the hands of the elected representatives of the people, who would be able to bring their influence to bear and come to effective decisions in remedying the situation, so it is thought undesirable that an important element in the housing question should be left in the hands of the elected representatives of the people.
This irresponsible body, therefore, is to be set up by any local authority that desires to appoint it to control the houses built by them, and it will not have to listen to or be sensitive to any feeling of the public; it can be in the position of an autocrat responsible to no one and be able to continue to mishandle—it may be, grossly to mishandle—the housing affairs of the locality. The Minister now refuses to insert in the Bill a provision under which a local authority when it so desires should be able to dissolve the commission which might otherwise put a permanent millstone round its neck. It is a. tragedy that this should be inserted in the Bill. Anyone who cares for democracy at all should be on the look out for this sort of provision. We shall be fully justified in regarding them as very sinister when coming from this Government, for they form part of a general policy along these lines. They should be opposed by everyone who believes that the people should control their own destiny, whether in the matter of housing or poverty, or of any other question of public importance.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is really a question of constitutional principle. It
has been laid down in the House time and time again that no Parliament can bind its successor. Parliament, however, is now about to impose on local authorities a limitation which ought never to be imposed on them. It is a limitation of their powers which has never been imposed before. If after this Government ceases to exist it is felt in the wisdom of the next Government that this Bill is wrong, they can repeal it. We are now, however, being asked to lay down that, apart from special national legislation or private Bill legislation, a local governing authority, having taken a decision to demunicipalise its housing estates, will not be able to reverse that decision. I think that every hon. Member will agree that that will put fetters on a local authority which this House would never put upon itself. How many times have we heard that this House is free to change its mind when it likes. If there be a change of Government, they can change the legislation. Once this provision is on the Statute Book, if a local authority decides to hand over its housing functions and activities to a commission, that decision will remain for ever.
Let me put the other side of the case to hon. Members opposite. Members of this party do not happen to be in a majority on all local authorities, but I think I am right in saying that we control the majority in over 100 local authorities in England and Wales. Suppose, as I should certainly advise them to do, they pass a resolution never to appoint a commission. How would the opposition on those councils like it? They would regard it as wrong. I should regard it as wrong if a majority of a town council, for the time being were to pass a resolution which was to bind their successors. I am sure the House must see that this new procedure is one which creates a situation which the House itself would not like to adopt. I do not want to press it too far, because this provision gives us a new precedent in legislation which might be adopted in a way that hon. Members opposite would not like if there were a change of Government. Suppose an Act were passed debarring any local authority from doing anything which the party then in office did not like. That is only a step forward for the present proposal. The principle in the Bill really
cuts at the root of national and local democratic government. I am not questioning the right of the right hon. Gentleman to give the power to local authorities to demunicipalise their services. I know that that is the policy of the party opposite and that the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has written about it at great length. I understand this new policy of the Tory party to demunicipalise every service that is now municipalised. If hon. Members wish to do that, they ought at least to give the right to the electors in any municipality to change their minds when they wish.
What the right hon. Gentleman is doing now is unparalleled in our history. The Parliamentary Secretary smiles, but I shall be glad if he will give me a single instance where a local authority has been given power to bind its successors for ever, apart from an Act of the Imperial Parliament. It has never been done, and to do it in this case is opening a wide door which may make local government utterly futile and the cat's-paw of the Government which is in power for the time being. I hope I am broadminded enough to believe that local government is local government whatever Government is in power, and the governing authorities in our municipal areas should be entitled to exercise the will of the people who sent them there by a majority. I think the House has already made one serious mistake to-day, and I hope that it will not commit this grave mistake of trying to fetter the freedom of local authorities to change their minds if the electors wish them to do so. This is an indirect way of imposing an unfair form of central control upon the activities of local authorities.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I hope that I did not misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), but it seemed to me that he was overstating his case unnecessarily. Surely the Bill does not intend to impose upon local authorities something which will be on them for ever and which they will not be able to reverse. What it does s to give local authorities permission to impose something on their successors.

Mr. GREENWOOD: It will be for good.

Mr. MALLALIEU: It may be for good. That is where I differ from the right hon.
Gentleman. It is to that point that I would like the Minister to reply. The Minister suggested that Clause 25 (2, g) met the situation, but with great respect that does not seem to be the case. Subsection (2) seems to give merely a permissive power to the local authority. Therefore, the local authority, according to the wording of this Bill, may make rules or regulations as to the re-vesting of property in the local authority. It says "may," but it does not seem to be obligatory upon them. My submission is that unless all that has been said from the Labour benches is to be true, surely the words in the Bill should be such as to make it obligatory upon the local authority to make provision for a re-vesting of the property in itself should it so desire. It is on that point that I would ask for a reply from the Minister.

9.16 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I was not arguing that the local authority are bound to make provisions such as those referred to in the Amendment. On the contrary I was arguing that that is the wrong thing to do. I was pointing out that they might, if they pleased, make provisions equivalent to those in the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: If a local authority produced a scheme setting up commissioners for 10, 15 or 20 years and that scheme were adopted the successors to that local authority would have no power to dissolve the commissioners during those 15 or 20 years. Is that so?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is unthinkable that a local authority should propose or the Ministry should accept a scheme which made no provision for a case of default or incompetence on the part of the commissioners or circumstances of that sort, but I think in theory the hon. Member is right. That is the position I am defending.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: I do not know where the official Opposition stand in this matter. I understand what the Minister said about Clause 25 being permissive, and I understand the attitude of the Liberal party, but do I understand from the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that he speaks for the Socialist party in this matter, or do I understand that the hon.
Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) is their official spokesman in matters of this sort? If I understood the right hon. Member for Wakefield correctly he seemed to say that the electors ought to be entitled, in his opinion, to change their mind if they wish. I take it he has the support of the members of his party for that proposition. He went on to say that it was a very bad thing that a local authority should become the cat's-paw of the Government in being, a very admirable sentiment, but I think I ought to draw his attention to the words used by the hon. Member for Limehouse in that monumental work "Problems of a Socialist Government," because he really ought not to confuse the House as he has done. On page 197 the hon. Member for Limehouse, who seems to speak, on some occasions, for his party, said that local authorities have as much civic pride and even latent Socialism in them when they are not Socialists and went on:

"So long as they do not fear that every activity will mean a rise in the local rates they"—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No doubt this is very interesting, but I think we had better postpone arguments over the difference of opinion between the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) to some other occasion.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: But I am in this difficulty, that before I can come to a decision on this matter I must know whether we are to take the words of the hon. Member for Limehouse as representing the official Socialist party or those of the right hon. Member for Wakefield. There is bound to be a little confusion in the country and in this House unless we can have the matter cleared up.

Question put. "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes,52; Noes, 199.

Division No. 207.]
AYES.
[9.20 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W.Riding)
Mallalieu. Edward Lancelot


Cleary, J. J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Cove, William G.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Daggar, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies. David L. (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dobbie, William
John, William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Edwards. Charles
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Williams. Thomas (York, Don valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Dickie. John P.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Drewe, Cedric


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Apsley, Lord
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Eastwood, John Francis


Aske, Sir Robert William
Carver, Major William H.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Eimley, Viscount


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Clarry, Reginald George
Everard, W. Lindsay


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Blindell, James
Conant, R. J. E.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Bossom, A. C.
Cooke, Douglas
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Boulton, W. W.
Copeland, Ida
Goff, Sir Park


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Goldie, Noel B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crooke, J. Smedley
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Greene, William P. C.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crossley, A. C.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Grimston, R. V.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hanbury, Cecil


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Denman, Hon. R D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Hartington, Marquess of
Manningham-Buller. Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Harvey, George (Lambeth, kenningt'n)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt, Edward W.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Martin, Thomas B.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mason. Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mayhaw, Lieut.-Colonel John
Selley, Harry R.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Horobin, Ian M.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Soper, Richard


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Morgan, Robert H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Morrison, William Shephard
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Munro, Patrick
Stones, James


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nall, Sir Joseph
Storey, Samuel


Jamieson, Douglas
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Nunn, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Kimball, Lawrence
Pearson, William G.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Peat, Charles U.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Leckie, J. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Petherick, M
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lees-Jones, John
Pike, Cecil F.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lewis, Oswald
Pybus, Sir John
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Remer, John R.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Mabane, William
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wise, Alfred R.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Rickards, George William
Womersley, Sir Walter


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ross, Ronald D.



McKeag, William
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McKie, John Hamilton
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Sir George Penny.


Magnay, Thomas
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

9.30 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 23, line 15, to leave out Subsection (6).
I submit that this Sub-section is in no way germane to the purposes which should be borne in mind in a Bill of this kind. The Sub-section provides that unless the scheme makes provision for the accounts of one of these commissions to be audited by a district auditor, of necessity there shall be an auditor appointed from a certain body of accountants practising in England or in Scotland. In other words, this Amendment is a corollary to an Amendment proposed that no buildings should be erected by a local authority unless a qualified architect was employed. The Committee would not accept that, and that Amendment which was down on the Paper was not called. If you are going to close a profession, whether the architects' profession, the accountants' profession, or any other profession, it should be done in an ad hoc Bill designed to close that profession, and should not be done piecemeal, as is suggested in this Bill.
I belong to a profession which, perhaps, might be fairly regarded as the most closed profession in the country. I have not the slightest objection to closed professions. I think they are admirable, but if you are going to close them do not do so piecemeal. Do it to everybody. The accountants protected by this Subsection belong to a very distinguished body. They are people who, no doubt, would be reasonably called upon by any person present. Some efforts have been made, and are being made, to enable them to have the monopoly of practising accountancy, but unless they have that monopoly why should the housing Committee be tied down to employ one of them? The suggestion was made that no building should be erected by a local authority unless it employed an architect, and the position was put forward that that might be the making of a monopoly for architects so far as the housing committee was concerned. Why should this be put in in this way? I was not present in the Committee up stairs when this matter was discussed, and it seems to have slipped through some-what unnoticed, because the three Sub-
sections were discussed together and the question of superannuation and other matters were dealt with, and this was never mentioned or discussed. In these circumstances, I beg to move the omission of the Sub-section, in order that these people may take the necessary steps, if they are entitled to do so, to close their profession throughout the whole country, and not limit it to this particular housing committee.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As no hon. Member rises to second, the Amendment lapses.

CLAUSE 27.—(Power of local authorities to make arrangements with housing associations.)

Amendments made: In page 24, line 28, after the first "to," insert "such matters, including the."

In line 29, after "and," insert "the."

In line 30, leave out "and otherwise."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

CLAUSE 42.—(Credits and debits in Housing Revenue Account.)

9.33 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 36, line 14, after "rents," to insert:
(exclusive of any amounts included therein in respect of rates or water charges).
The next ten Amendments refer to a very simple point. They are made to exclude rates and water charges both from the credit and the debit side in the Housing Revenue Account. We thought we had done that in the Clause but we find that in fact we had not, and these ten Amendments carry it out. They are mostly drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 36, line 31, leave out "at any time," and insert "for the purpose of the provision by them."

In line 33, leave out "for the purposes of," and insert "of housing accommodation for the working classes under."

In line 34, leave out the fourth "of," and insert "under."

In page 37, line 4, leave out "taxes, rates, rents and other charges," and insert "rents, taxes and other charges (except rates and water charges)."

In line 33, after "sold," insert "or otherwise disposed of."

In line 36, leave out "the proceeds of sale," and insert:
capital money received by the authority in respect of the transaction.

In line 37, after "directs," insert "as respects the whole or any part of such income."

In line 42, leave out from "authority," to "shall," in page 38, line 5, and insert:
for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (i) of sub-section (1) of this section."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

CLAUSE 44.—(Housing Repairs Account.)

Amendment made: In page 39, line 28, leave out "thereof, or such larger amount," and insert:
(exclusive of any amount included therein in respect of rates or water charges), and such amount, if any."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Do I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that the next Amendment is also a drafting Amendment?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is so. It is the original provision which we are seeking to supplant by the Amendments moved.

Further Amendment made: In page 39, leave out lines 32 to 38.—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

CLAUSE 46.—(Temporary application of moneys in housing accounts.)

9.38 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 41, line 11, to leave out from "may," to the end of the Clause and to insert:
be used by the authority for the purpose of any statutory borrowing power possessed by them subject to the conditions specified in Sub-section (2) of this Section, and so far as not so used shall be invested temporarily in statutory securities (other than securities created by the authority), and an amount equal to any income arising from such investment shall be credited to the Account.
(2) The conditions subject to which moneys may be used as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section shall be the following, that is to say:
(a) the moneys so used shall be repaid to the Account out of the general rate, or the general rate fund, within the period, and by the methods within, and by which a loan raised under the statutory borrowing power would be repayable:
Provided that the authority shall repay to the Account the moneys so used or the
balance thereof for the time being out standing, as the case may be, as and when required for the purposes of the Account, and may make such repayment at any time within the period aforesaid, and in either case the repayment shall be made out of the general rate, or the general rate fund, or out of moneys which would have been applicable to the repayment of a loan if raised under the statutory borrowing power;
(b) in the accounts of the general rate fund an amount equal to interest (calculated at such rate as may be determined by the authority to be equal as nearly as may be to the rate of interest which would be payable on a loan raised on mortgage under the statutory borrowing power) on any moneys so used and for the time being not repaid shall be credited to the Account and debited to the undertaking or purpose with reference to which the moneys are so used;
(c) the statutory borrowing power shall be deemed to be exercised by such use as fully in all respects as if a loan of the same amount had been raised in exercise of the power, and the provisions of any enactment as to the re-borrowing of sums raised under the statutory borrowing power shall apply accordingly.
This Amendment, though long in appearance, is, I think, non-controversial, and in substance scarcely amounts to more than a drafting Amendment. It deals with the power of a local authority in relation to the balances standing to the credit of the housing repairs account or the housing equalisation account, and to make use of these balances under its ordinary borrowing powers. It was agreed in Committee that it was undesirable for assent to have to be obtained on every occasion when a local authority wanted to invest surpluses of this kind, and that it was much more businesslike for the Clause to lay down the general conditions under which a local authority could invest the money. I think the Amendment fulfils the undertaking which I gave to the Committee as to the redrafting of the Clause.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am very pleased that the Minister is moving the Amendment, but I would ask him whether it represents the general policy of his Department. At the moment, three or four Corporation Bills are having a Second Reading, and three contain general powers which enable the municipalities to use their sinking funds so that one department may lend money to another department of the same corporation. That does not seem very good finance. As far
as I understand the Amendment, what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing is that where a corporation has surplus money in its housing fund it has to invest it outside the corporation. I should like to know whether it is the intention to apply that generally to the municipal finance.

9.40 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think that it follows from this Clause that all such moneys must necessarily be invested outside the corporation. Speaking with some hesitation and on the spur of the moment, I should not accept the general principle that it is bad finance for a local authority to invest its sinking fund with other parts of the same authority. On the contrary, I should look upon that as very good finance. I cannot argue it on a particular case, but the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has challenged me on the general principle. It may be an economic thing for the local authority to make such investments. I would make it quite clear that the Clause does not rule out the possibility of investments of that kind.

9.42 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is there not another point in regard to this matter? The right hon. Gentleman says he does not think it wrong for a municipality to invest money accumulated in the housing and other sinking funds in the way mentioned by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). Is it not the real intention that they may expend this surplus cash in other capital commitments and not in paying off the sinking funds of other Departments This is a matter of public policy which would appear to require further explanation. If a local authority is accumulating funds against the day when certain loans relating to housing ought to be paid off, does the right hon. Gentleman think it proper for such an authority to expend that cash in other capital commitments?

9.43 p.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: I am not quite clear about this, because on reading the Amendment I also received the impression that the words "other than securities created by the authority," applied to outside investments. The matter is of some importance, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, and the House would
like some guidance as to the conditions in which it is proper for a sinking fund, which was supposed to be available as cash for the payment of securities falling due, to be locked up in capital works of the authority. I should think that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) was correct in saying that this is a dangerous thing to do. It has been the cause of trouble in many big industrial undertakings. Surely the whole purpose of a sinking fund is to have cash available for the retirement of securities. If that is not the intention of the Amendment, may I ask the meaning of the words "other than securities created by the authority"?

9.44 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the two hon. Members is that the transactions to which reference has been made are perfectly sound, natural and usual, and that they are subject to the safeguards of the Clause. The first safeguard is that the money shall be available when required, and the second and essential safeguard is that payment of the amount borrowed from other parts of the local authority shall be subject to the same condition, in relation to having to pay it back in the same time, as though the money were borrowed from any other source. There will be the same repayment of interest as if the money were borrowed from an outside body. With those safeguards, I think this is perfectly acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 47.—(Time and manner of payment of Exchequer contributions.)

Amendment made: In page 41, line 22, leave out from the beginning to "this," in line 24, and insert:
Contributions to be made by the Minister to a local authority under any enactment in the Housing Acts, 1919 to 1931, or in."—[Sir H. Young.]

CLAUSE 50.—(Conditions to be observed by local authorities.)

9.46 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in page 43, line 34, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in respect of new or vacated houses for which an exchequer contribution is paid, the authority shall in fixing rent and in granting rebates and in selecting tenants aim at securing that the benefit of the exchequer contribution shall
accrue only to tenants who need it and only for so long as they need it.
This Amendment merely proposes to get into housing legislation a principle which has long been implicit in it and explicit in the circulars of the Ministry, but which has never been clearly laid down in any Act. The Act of 1930 gave for the first time permission to local authorities to charge standard rents subject to rebates, so as to bring the houses within the means of poorer tenants, and a circular in connection with that Act laid down that:
It is the clear intention of Parliament that the benefit of the new grant shall not enure to persons for whom it is not needed. The grant, together with the prescribed rate charge, should be regarded as a pool out of which such abatements are to be financed.
In view of that circular, a number of local authorities did introduce rebates on the standard rents, and when the present Minister came into office and developed the slum clearance scheme he issued a further circular, in which emphasis was laid on the principle that subsidies were not intended to be wasted on those who did not need them; and it was made clear that the principle of rebates could be applied in the case of 1924 houses as well as of 1930 houses. The circular definitely suggested that, even if a tenant was in a house and his circumstances so changed that he was better able to pay a higher rent, it would be proper for the authority to charge him a higher rent, and even the full economic rent; while, on the other hand, tenants whose circumstances had changed for the worse might have their rent lowered. That is a very important principle, because everyone experienced in housing work knows that one of the reasons why the subsidies given under different Acts have been relatively ineffective is that most local authorities, having put up their houses, have proceeded to let them to any tenant that offered, making little or no attempt to see that the houses were used for those tenants for whom, surely, houses are really intended to be subsidised, that is to say, those who could not afford economic rents. The present Bill, following on the lines of its predecessor, suggests in Clause 50 that in, the selection of tenants a reasonable preference shall be given to persons who are occupying insanitary or overcrowded houses, have large families, or are living under unsatis-
factory housing conditions; and a later Sub-section says that:
In fixing rents the authority shall take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality, but may grant to any tenant such rebates from rent, subject to such terms and conditions, as they may think fit.
I suggest, however, that that does not go far enough. Sub-section (1) suggests that a reasonable preference should be given to people who are living in overcrowded or insanitary houses, or have large families, or are living under unsatisfactory housing conditions; but how is reasonable preference to be given to those families if the very families that suffer most are unable to afford the rents charged for the houses which were put up for their benefit? There is no security that the rents charged will bring the houses within the means of such persons, and we All know that people with small wages and large families are very often quite unable to pay either the economic rent or even the rent lowered by the full amount of the ordinary subsidy. The Bill recognises that fact to the extent of making it permissive, as previous Acts have done, for the local authority to grant rebates of rent, and the Clause which provides for the pooling of all subsidies under the different Acts very much facilitates the principle of rebates. But nowhere in the Bill is a clear lead given to the local authorities to adopt either the method of rebates or any other method, if there is one—I do not think, myself, that there is—which will really suffice to bring the houses within the means of the poorer tenants and yet not waste the subsidy on those who do not need it.
I submit that, if the Minister really thinks what he says in the circulars which he has issued, namely, that it is the intention of Parliament that housing subsidies should not be wasted on those who are able to pay economic rents, he should not bury that expression of opinion in circulars which go, perhaps, to the director of housing and the town clerk, but are never even seen by the members of the housing committee of the Authority. We know that in the ease of a large number of authorities these circulars, where they are permissive, are practically dead letters. About 30 housing authorities, including Birmingham, Walsall, Bolton and Cambridge, have adopted the rebate system, because they have seen that there is. no other way of lowering the rents
sufficiently to meet the needs of the poorer tenants. The town that has done this most drastically has been Leeds, with Socialist majority which "went the whole hog," so to speak, and carried out the instructions of the Minister to their full logical extent. They revised the rents of all their houses—not only the new houses, but all the houses put up by the corporation—raising them to the full economic rent in the case of those tenants who could 'afford to pay it, and, where the tenants could not afford to pay the rent without stinting the minimum physiological needs of their families, granting rebates to such an extent that some tenants pay no rent at all.
That is an example of rebates which attracted very wide publicity, and it drew down a great deal of odium on the system, for, not unnaturally, tenants who had been admitted to their houses and had received the full benefit of subsidies of which they had no need, felt somewhat injured when, following a political change, they were asked to pay the full economic rent, which was a considerable advance on what they had previously been paying. I should never have advocated anything quite so drastic as that, although it was perfectly logical and in accord with the Minister's own circulars, which practically suggest that very thing. I only bring forward that instance to show that the plan is legal and has been carried out even to that extreme extent. The great majority of local authorities that have adopted the principle of rebates have done so on a much more modest scale, and most of them have only applied it to houses built under the Act of 1930; but, if this present Measure is to reach its full effect in providing, not only for families who are overcrowded, but for the families who most need better accommodation—that is to say, those who are overcrowded because they are both poor and burdened with large families—it really is essential that some means should be adopted, where the necessity arises, for lowering the rent by more than the amount of the minimum subsidy. That can be done and is fully authorised under the present Bill through the rebate system; but the position is left very vague, and no kind of indication is given that the authorities are even desired by the Ministry to adopt the plan. I think it would be very much better if a Clause
were put directly into the Bill laying it down that authorities were expected to see that subsidies were used for those who needed them, and not for those who did not.
Some hon. Members of the House dislike the idea of this principle, because they say that it savours of that objectionable thing, the means test. The case for a means test in reference to subsidised houses is infinitely stronger than it is in any other connection. If you take the question of unemployment assistance, there is nothing but the Treasury to fix a limit to the number to whom assistance may be given, but in the case of houses the number available is so small that it is limited not only by the amount of money to be spent, but by the difficulty of putting up a large enough number of houses quickly. But if the houses that are put up by the help of the sudsidy are given to tenants quite irrespective of their means—and many authorities actually prefer the well-to-do tenant because he is likely to be a good tenant—the effect is quite inevitable. The poorest of the tenants and those with young families to support who most need good housing fail to get it. I believe that the Scottish Committee are being much more radical in this respect than were the Committee presiding over this Bill. I notice from the report of the proceedings on the Scottish Housing Bill that it is proposed not only to make the rebate system permissive but compulsory, or at least to urge it very strongly, and it is practically made compulsory in the form in which it is introduced.
I should like to propose a much stronger alteration in the Bill than that on the Order Paper, but I realise that at this stage it is no use proposing a drastic alteration. Therefore, all I suggest is an Amendment which, for the first time, puts into the Bill a definite direction to the local authority that it is their duty to issue such regulations as to rent and allocation of houses that the houses will become available for those who need them, and that the subsidies shall not be payable to those who do not need them. There is nothing new in this proposal. Previous Housing Acts have already made the principle permissive, and the circulars issued show that
the clear intention of the Acts is that the subsidy shall be so used. If that be the clear intention of this Bill, why does it not say so? Why is the intention left vague in the circulars? Therefore, I suggest this very modest Amendment for the purpose of bringing into a Housing Act, for the first time, a reference to the principle that the purpose of housing subsidies is to reduce rents to those who cannot pay the standard rent without such reduction, and that they should not be used for those who are under no such necessity.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.59 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I will not follow the hon. Member into the more controversial aspects of the speech in which she moved her Amendment. The Amendment itself has very little that is controversial. The only question that arises is as to its necessity. We shall all be in cordial agreement that it is a primary principle in good housing administration that houses, the rents of which are subsidised from public funds, shall go to benefit those who need assistance, and we shall all be strongly opposed to the kind of administration to which she referred by which the local authority may be tempted to give preference to the better off classes. There is really no difference about that position, and so far from this principle being concealed in circulars we are deciding for the first time to put it down in black and white as part of the Bill in a manner which forms a charter for the badly off class, and a guarantee against wastage of public funds for purposes for which they are not required. Sub-section (1) the hon. Member will see applies to subsidised houses in respect of which local authorities are to keep a housing revenue account, and Subsection (2) provides that priority is given to those who are occupying insanitary or overcrowded houses or have large families or are living under unsatisfactory housing conditions. Her Amendment, the spirit of which I fully appreciate, would not do anything at all. All that is intended is done in Sub-section (5). In these circumstances, and with the assurance which I am able to give, I trust that she will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.

10.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on the meaning of the word "rent" in Sub-section (5). Does it mean that the local authority have to make rebates lower than the standard subsidised rent or can they work from an economic rent without subsidy and make rebates down from that rent? If they can do the latter, it will give the local authority a much greater range of action. They will be able to carry out more fully the provision of Sub-section (2) by having a larger pool to work to.

10.3 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: It appears to me that they are not prevented from taking either course, but the normal course in fixing rents is to take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by the working class in the locality. That is something to be taken into consideration in fixing the normal rent.

10.4 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: The right hon. Gentleman has not satisfied me, because he has not explained to the Committee in what sense giving a reasonable preference to badly off tenants is equivalent to making it possible for badly off tenants to avail themselves of that preference. A preference may be given to a badly off tenant at the rent charged, but if the badly off tenant cannot pay the standard rent that does not secure that the local authority are required to make such arrangements as will enable him to do so.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member press her Amendment.

Miss RATHBONE: I was going on to say—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Lady has already made one speech.

Miss RATHBONE: I do not want to keep the Committee as I know they are anxious to carry on, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said that the principle is implicit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, though I regret that it is necessary to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 53.—(Re-development by owners.)

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, n page 45, line 11, to leave out "demolished," and to insert "vacated."
The Amendment has been put down in order to fulfil a promise which was given to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower). The Clause enables the owner with the consent of the local authority to develop his own property. For that purpose the local authority may give a certicate which is conclusive under the Rent Restrictions Acts from the point of view of suitable alternative accommodation. But Sub-section (2) of the Clause is so drafted that that certificate can be given only in respect of a demolished house. It may be that an owner who wished to re-devolop may reconstruct his house and not demolish it, and he may nevertheless require a certificate. It is to meet that point that I move this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 57.—(Power of local authority to order demolition of obstructive building.)

10.6 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 47, line 28, at the end, to insert:
(3) This section shall not apply to a building which is the property of statutory undertakers, unless it is used for the purposes of a dwelling-house, showroom, or office, or which is the property of a local authority.
This is the Clause which gives power to the local authority to order demolition of obstructive buildings. It was suggested upstairs in Committee that, for instance, a gas company having put up a gasometer ought not to be in danger of having it demolished as an obstructive building. The Amendment is, I think, in accordance with the general scheme of our legislation in these matters.

10.7 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I think that we are entitled to a little more explanation on this Amendment. As I understand the exemption which he is proposing should be inserted in the Clause, a gasometer, for instance, could not by any means be removed. It might mean that a clearance proposed by a local authority and the replanning of the area would be completely sterilised and made almost impossible if a veto of this kind were inserted in the Bill. While it is clearly right and proper that some fair provision should be made for dealing with cases of that kind, and for providing alternative plans in a convenient place or convenient
to the new plan, it does seem to be rather unreasonable that a complete exemption of this kind, without any qualification and not subject to any inquiry or appeal, should be inserted in the Bill. I think that it would be useful if the Solicitor-General could give us some further explanation.

10.10 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, is familiar with—I hesitate to remind him of—the proviso of Section 64 of the Housing Act, 1925, which excepts from compulsory powers in effect the property of statutory undertakings. Surely if it be right to except them from compulsory acquisition, you should also except them from a Clause which enables them to be demolished. It is simply bringing into this Cause the limitation of compulsory powers which already exist in Section 64 of the 1925 Act. It is reasonable that offices and showrooms should not be given the same protection which the more essential parts are given. I do not want to delay the House, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the Amendment is really in line with other parts of our housing legislation which give compulsory powers.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 60.—(Amendment as to buildings in clearance area on ground of bad arrangement, etc., and repeal of provision for reduction of compensation.)

10.12 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I beg to move, in page 50, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2).
The Committee will appreciate that we are dealing with the slum landlord and the basis of compensation which ought to be paid to him. As far back as 1919 this House laid down what it thought was a reasonable basis of compensation for this type of landlord. We on this side of the House fail to understand why the Minister desires to change that basis. One of his predecessors in 1924–29 dealt with this question, and he had no reason to alter it. I should be pleased to know from the Minister whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now changed his mind also. In dealing with this matter in the Consolidation Act of 1925 he agreed to the basis laid down in 1919. We do
not see that any change has taken place to cause the Minister to suggest this change. When the Bill was discussed in 1919 in Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentlemen who are now supporting the Government were strong advocates of this Clause. Some criticised the Minister for paying compensation which was too generous. The right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) moved an Amendment which appeared to be intended to make the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), who was then in charge of the Housing and Town Planning Bill, into a defender of slum landlords. In moving his Amendment on 7th May, 1919, he said:
I should like to remind hon. Members that the Clause deals with bad property. It has nothing whatever to do with good housing or good property. It merely refers to the acquisition of the worst kind of property in the country—the very worst kind—the slums, slums which have in the past been the cause of a great deal of disease—tuberculosis and other disease—and the cause of a great deal of misery, and the cause of a great deal of crime, and it is that kind of property we are dealing with in this Clause.
His last words were that when the compensation was paid for a site covered with these rotten houses, then the compensation should be small compensation as a site for houses for the working classes, and they can leave the site as they like. I should like the Minister to tell us in what way does he differ from his right hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green? He himself some few months ago in the country referred to this type of house in the slums. He said then that they were no more entitled to compensation than was the butcher who sold contaminated meat. We agree that the Minister when he said that uttered wise words, and we ask him to get up and utter similar words, or, if he cannot, to defend the deletion of this Sub-section.
There is a further objection. In the industrial field we have often tried to get retrospective legislation. There have been times when we have felt that certain advantages have been denied to the workers far too long and we have asked that there should be restrospection for a few months or a year, but retrospective legislation has never ben looked upon favourably in this House. The Minister in this Sub-section has introduced restrospective legislation. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) the
other day put up a case for the owner-occupier in the slum. The man who out of his small savings has bought a, house and gone to live there deserves more consideration than the individual who has bought slum property for the purpose of making a profit. We hope that the Minister will put up a far better defence tonight than he did in Committee if he is going to resist our Amendment. We feel that his defence was nothing more than special pleading. Will he show us any reason why what has not been applied for 16 years should be applied now and why the basis of compensation for the owner of slum houses should be altered in order to give more to the slum landlord What earthly reason can there be for the slum landlord receiving more compensation in 1935 than in 1919?

10.17 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: So far from my observations in Committee explaining the attitude of the Government in abolishing the reduction factor being special pleading, I have never heard any defence of the so-called reduction factor on any basis of business common sense or justice and, with all due respect to the hon. Member, I have not heard any to-night. What is it that is being done in this Clause? In estimating the compensation that is paid to the owner whose property is to be taken over under the Act of 1930 at site value we have in the first place to ascertain the value of the site. The owner gets the value of the site, but owing to the existence of the artificial arrangement of the reduction factor which is imposed upon the ordinary system of valuation by the legislation to which the hon. Member has referred, we have to ascertain first of all the value of the land in the clearance area available for any form of development. That is what I call the market value, and then we have to ascertain the reduction in value of the land if it might be used only for the purpose of rehousing the working classes, and the unfortunate owner is allowed only the reduced value. In other words, there is a reduction imposed upon the natural market value of the site on the artificial consideration that the cleared land can only be used for rehousing the working classes. If the owner were able to realise the full value of his site, he would get the full value of his site on the basis that it could be used for any purpose, and it is
only because there is a special restriction that the cleared land is to be used for rehousing that he receives this specially reduced value instead of the full market value of his site. I have felt, as a plain man, that it was a procedure which it was impossible to justify. It was nothing more or less than confiscation of a part of the site value of the land.
We have heard from hon. Members opposite a great deal about the hardships inflicted on small owners of property in slum areas that full compensation is not given to them, and I have had to defend the principle of the site value basis; that nothing shall be given for a building which is worth nothing. I should be in an indefensible position if I were not only to say that we are to pay nothing for a building because it is worth nothing but went on to impose an artificial reduction in the value of the site, which is worth something. That is the plain issue, and I think it is perfectly well understood. The reasons why the Government are now proposing to abolish the reduction factor are also perfectly well understood. It is far from the truth to say that there have been no complaints. There have been bitter complaints against the injustice of the procedure, and this feeling of injustice has stood in the way of the rapid progress of the scheme. It is the object of the Government to get out of the way every injustice and hardship which stands in the way of a rapid progress of slum clearance. This extraordinary arrangement about site value stood in the way of rapid progress, and it will promote progress in slum clearance work if we secure a basis of site value which is absolutely sound and defensible.

10.22 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: The right bon. Gentleman has represented the errors of his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an attractive fashion, and it is a, pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to listen, because he more than anyone else has championed the justice of these provisions and has been responsible for their continuance. What is the case? It is the case of property condemned as insanitary and the price to be paid is the site value. The question is, What is the site value? If site value has
something more in it than it possesses when occupied by a dwelling which has been condemned as unfit for human habitation, why does not the owner realise that site value? It is open to him to do so. The event does not arise until a local authority comes along and says, "we will not allow you to let this house for human habitation any longer; it is a danger to the public health. We are going to take it from you and pay you for the land on which it stands." Now we are told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers have been wrong, that they were committing a gross injustice in so deciding; that what the man is entitled to is the value of the site after the local authority has cleared it for any other purpose as a cleared site. If he is so anxious to realise this potentially enhanced value of the site, why does he not clear it? The reason is that he gets rent from the unhappy tenants. There is no justice in the proposal. It is simply a present to those who are the owners of houses which have been condemned as unfit for human habitation, which they are unable to realise them selves, but are enabled to realise by the action of the local authority. That is all it is. I hope my hon. Friends will persist in their objection.

10.25 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: This particular Clause undoubtedly has been inserted as a result of pressure from many parts of the House. That does not necessarily mean that it is right. It has nothing particular to do with the purpose of the Bill. In practice it is going to make slum clearance very much more expensive. But it is not going to make it more expensive at the expense of the national Exchequer, but more difficult at the expense of the local rates. We all realise that. I suggest that if the Minister was really convinced of the justice of the case he ought, first, to have made provision for this additional cost to come out of the national revenue, and should not have put the whole burden on the local rates; and, secondly, if the old practice since 1919 is unjust there is no reason why this additional money should not be paid to those persons who had this apparent right taken away from them. If it is unjust it should be retrospective.
I make this proposition: The Government are making a great number of people a very valuable present at the expense of local rates. A great deal of this property has changed hands since 1919. These slums in the great cities, or most of them, are well known to business people. I know that there is the case of the individual who owns a house in one of these areas, and that certainly is a hardship; but the streets of property, the large areas with which the Amendment is mostly concerned, have been well known since 1919 and even further back than that. In my own district of Bethnal Green most of these black spots have been scheduled for 25 years or more. Some of them date back to 1900. Their existence has been common knowledge. I know that large blocks of such property have been bought cheaply because they are slum property and have been bringing in very substantial revenue to the persons in possession.
The Minister said with apparent plausibility that we are taking away from these people the value of land that is rightly theirs and for which they are entitled to a revenue. As a matter of fact in most of these cases you are going to present the owners of these properties with a very valuable present, because in London nearly all these sites have a much greater value as commercial propositions than they have when covered by houses, as they are regulated by the Rent Restrictions Acts. Many of the owners of these properties have been trying by all kinds of means to get rid of their tenants in order to sell the sites for commercial purposes, for factories or workshops, or some other industrial purpose. Owing to the restriction on rents they have not been able to dispose of these properties at a commercial value. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes along with this Clause, the tenants are to be cleared away and these people are to be put in full possession of the sites for which they will be able to get, not the value of houses which were subject to restricted rents, but the value from a commercial point of view. In South and East and West London some of these sites are worth three times as much from a commercial point of view.
Personally, I am so keen about getting on with this job that, if the Exchequer in their wisdom decided to pay out of the
taxes this additional money, although I would not like it in theory, I would not offer much objection. But I know that in practice this additional burden is going to be placed on the local rates, and in many parts of the country, particularly in the North, it means that the slum clearance programme must necessarily be delayed. It is common knowledge that there are places in the North where the rates are something like 20s. in the £, and there is no source of revenue from which to provide this additional cost. Inevitably, there will be a hold up of slum clearance in many of the great provincial towns where there is a large amount of unemployment. Before we pass this Clause we have a right to ask the Minister whether he has made any estimate of the additional cost to the local rates that will be involved. The Minister has no right to come here and lightly and in an irresponsible way to seek to change what has been the law of the land since 1919, without giving the House any estimate of the extra burden which will be placed on the local rates. Local authorities have often said—I do not say always with justification—that Parliament is too ready to put extra burdens on them when Parliament has not to provide the money. Here certainly is an example of that kind of legislation. We are entitled to an estimate of the additional cost to the local rates of this heavy addition to the charges for the slum clearance programme.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) said it was wicked to exact rent from the unfortunate tenants of delapidated property, a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. But I would ask him to agree that it is also vicious to take property from any persons, whoever they may be, without giving them adequate compensation. I wish to thank the Minister for his statement, not on my own behalf so much as on behalf of the Socialist party in my division, whose club is at the moment the subject of an inquiry with a view to demolition. As a result of his words to-night they have a prospect of receiving adequate compensation.

10.35 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: In reply to the specific question of the hon. Member for South-
West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) he may be assured that careful inquiries have been made into the effect of the Clause both in relation to past obligations and in relation to the future. The general result of those inquiries is to convince me that the effect upon the financial operations under the Bill from the point of view of the Housing Revenue Account, will be by no means substantial. I cannot give any general figures, but if the hon. Gentleman were to ask for any particular figure, I might be able to let him have it.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: The statement made earlier by the Minister does not at all satisfy me. The Government contemplate a position in which slum landlords shall be able to get the fullest price in the open market for the site value of their land. But what is the real value of any land? It has no value unless it is to be used for some purpose and labour is to be applied to it. Having no value, if it is used for agricultural purposes, it will have a very small value; if it is used for building working-class houses, it will have a somewhat higher value; and if it is used for the purpose of building factories or for some other industrial purpose, it will have a very much higher value still. The Minister, because of his desire to see that the slum owners get the fullest measure of compensation, gives assessors the opportunity of valuing the land at its highest possible measure of value. I think that is grossly unfair, and I would like to remind the Government that in a great many of these cases the slum property has been in the same ownership for many years. It was probably purchased at a time when its site value, either as agricultural, housing, or factory land, was very much lower than it is now, and as a consequence of the general increase in the value of land, that value is to be given to the present owner, who is a slum owner.
The Minister himself asked not very long ago, at a certain conference, "Would you compensate a purveyor of rotten meat?" You would not, nor would you compensate the purveyor of rotten property, or the Minister would not have done so then, but since then apparently he has not only become willing to compensate the purveyor of rotten houses,
but he is now contemplating the compensation of slum owners on the highest possible site value that can be got in the open market. This Bill contemplates a site value, not for factories or workshops, but for housing purposes, and the Minister himself, or his Department, would never sanction the purchase by a local authority of land at the rate of £400 or £500 per house if such a purchase were contemplated by a local authority. In this case, however, it may work out in that way. If a site somewhere near the City of London in a slum area is to be assessed at the value that it would fetch in the open market for the purposes of industry, it will amount for housing purposes to a high price per house, and an altogether unfair price which will more than adequately compensate the owner. The whole thing is so grossly unfair and has been admittedly unfair in the past. It is amazing that the Minister of Health, particularly after the utterances he has made to the public in the last 12 months or so, should have changed his mind to such an extent as to bring this Clause before the House.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: The Minister told us in his first speech that the Government were here remedying a great injustice under which owners of slum property had been living for the last 16 years. Then he defended himself later by saying, "Really, there is not much.

money involved; you need not take much notice of it." We would like to know whether it is really a big thing that he is doing, or only a tiny thing about which we need not take any notice. It cannot be both. With regard to his statement that it will not make much difference or put much burden on the local authorities, I would like to remind him that the estimate that has been made by the London County Council is that this provision will add to every house purchased the cost of about £30. That is a considerable sum, and with the extensive operations that will take place in London it will add a large amount to the cost of slum clearance. If we are able, as we hope to be, to clear something like 5,000 houses a year in the London area, this extra cost will amount to £150,000, which is equivalent to more than a halfpenny rate. It is no use going away with the idea that this Clause will not add a great burden on local authorities. I want to emphasise the serious burden that will be put on them by this alteration in the law. It can only have one result, which is to hamper and to delay the local authorities in carrying out their slum clearance schemes and the rehousing of the people who are now living in slum houses.

Question put, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 50.

Division No. 208.]
AYES.
[10.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R
Dickie, John P.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Drewe, Cedric


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Eastwood, John Francis


Apsley, Lord
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Edge, Sir William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Carver, Major William H.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Castlereagh, Viscount
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clarry, Reginald George
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Bateman, A. L.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Conant, R. J. E.
Goff, Sir Park


Bernays, Robert
Cooke, Douglas
Goldie, Noel B.


Blindell, James
Copeland, Ida
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Bossom, A. C.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Graves, Marjorie


Boulton, W. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Greene, William P. C.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Grigg, Sir Edward


Boyce, H. Leslie
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Grimston, R. V.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Crossley, A. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hanbury, Cecil


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Broadbent, Colonel John
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hartington, Marquess of


Harvey, George (Lambeth, kenningt'n)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt, Edward W.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Martin, Thomas B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Hailgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mason. Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillip A. G. D.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Mayhaw, Lieut.-Colonel John
Selley, Harry. R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Somervell, Sir Donald


Horobin, Ian M.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Moreing, Adrian C.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Morgan, Robert H.
Soper, Richard


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Munro, Patrick
Stevenson, James


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stones, James


Iveagh, Countess of
Nunn, William
Storey, Samuel


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jamieson, Douglas
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peake, Osbert
Tate, Mavis Constance


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Pearson, William G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peat, Charles U.
Thomas, James P. L (Hereford)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Penny, Sir George
Thompson, Sir Luke


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Petherick, M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Pike, Cecil F.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Leckie, J. A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lees-Jones, John
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Liddal, Walter S.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Remer, John R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rickards, George William
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mabane, William
Ross, Ronald D.
Wise, Alfred R.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Runge, Norah Cecil



McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McKie, John Hamilton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sir Victor Warrender and Sir


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Walter Womersley.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cleary, J. J.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Sir Percy
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Paling.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 62.—(Arrangements where acquisition of land in clearance area found to be necessary.)

10.54 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 51, line 21, after "Minister," to insert:
on an application for an authorisation under this section being made to him by the owner of the land and the authority.
This and the three following Amendments deal with a point of technical procedure which I explained to the House on Second Reading and I will not repeat it unless required. The doubt was expressed by somebody that this machinery might operate against the wish of the local authority, and it is to make sure that this machinery can only operate if the local authority and the owner and the Minister concur that I move the
Amendment. The others are no more than drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 51, line 39, leave out "enter into such covenants," and insert:
discontinue proceedings for the purchase of the land on their being satisfied that such covenants have been or will be entered into by all necessary parties.

In page 52, line 3, leave out from "1930," to end of Sub-section.

In line 5, to leave out from the first "a," to "shall," in line 7, and insert:
covenant has been entered into with the local authority for the purposes of this section, the authority."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

CLAUSE 72.—(Interpretation and Amendment of Act of 1925, s. 92.)

Amendment made: In page 57, line 7, after "shall," insert:
for the purposes of that section and of this section."—[Sir H. Young.]

CLAUSE 75.—(Provisions as to caravans and other movable forms of shelter.)

10.56 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPERE: I beg to move, in page 58, line 22, to leave out "on the same site," and to insert "in the same enclosure."
Clause 75 enables a subsidy to be paid in order to rehouse persons living in quasi-movable structures such as tents or caravans. The question arose, for what length of time can a caravan occupy the same site in order to be considered a permanent structure corresponding to a dwelling-house, and it was decided that two years on the site should enable a tent or caravan to be qualified for subsidy. It was then asked: Suppose that a caravan be moved a couple of yards, would it then be disqualified for subsidy because it had been moved and was no longer on the same site? The words proposed to be inserted by the Amendment have been chosen to meet that point, which was raised by members of the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 76.—(Extinguishment of rights of way in advance of purchase.)

Amendment made: In page 58, line 37, leave out "thereafter," and insert "after that date."—[Sir H. Young.]

10.58 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 58, line 38, at the end to insert:
Provided that notwithstanding the snaking of an order under this Section any statutory undertakers owning apparatus in any land to which such order relates, shall, until the local authority shall have completed the purchase of all houses and premises abutting on such land, and supplied by such local authority, company, body, or person, with gas, water, water for hydraulic power, or electricity, have all such rights of access to such apparatus as they had immediately before the making of such order, and shall be entitled to execute and do all such works and things in, upon, or under such land as may be necessary for inspecting, repairing, maintaining, removing, or renewing such apparatus.
A local authority is given power by the Clause to extinguish a public right of way when they are proposing to take possession of houses in the area concerned. In other words, they may extinguish a public right of way before they have obtained possession of those houses. The situation will arise that a public right of way has been extinguished during a time when there are still houses making use of certain public utilities, such as gas, electricity and water. It seems essential that during that period, extinction of the right of way should not deprive a public utility authority, whether it be municipality or company, of an opportunity of making use of the right of way which they possessed before the general right of way was extinguished. It may seem a little strange that I should bring in the question of municipalities, but there are cases where a county council, for example, may be taking over a right of way and where the local authority, from the point of view of supply of public utilities, is a municipal borough, urban district or a rural district council. Therefore, this is not a matter which only affects companies, but it affects municipalities also, and it seems only reasonable that these rights, which they possess in order that they may carry out duties imposed upon them by Parliament, should not be extinguished.

11 p.m.

Mr. CLARRY: I beg to second the Amendment.
It would seem that the draftsman had not in mind the rights, such as they are, of public utility undertakings, because the Clause refers to land, but it is necessary that such rights as exist of access to property during the period between the
time when those rights are extinguished and the time when the property is taken over for the purposes of the Act should be reserved.

11.1 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that this Amendment has been put down under a misunderstanding. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said that under the Clause the local authority could make an Order which would take effect before they took possession; but, if he will look at line 35, he will see that the Order only extinguishes the right as from the date on which the authority takes possession. We think that probably the Amendment is unnecessary, but, if it is necessary, we think that this is the wrong place for it, because it merely extends the power under the existing Clause. If there is a hole that needs stopping up, words should have been added to the new Clause which we moved the other day. I do not want to delay the House, but I can tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is perfectly prepared and anxious to hear representations from these interests, and, if they convince him that an Amendment is required, steps will be taken to have a provision inserted in another place. Perhaps, with this assurance, my hon. Friend may see his way not to press the Amendment.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In view of the explanation which the Solicitor-General has given, and of his undertaking that, if anything is necessary to make sure that public utilities will be able to carry out their statutory obligations, the necessary provision will be made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 78.—(Extension of power to make a closing order as to part of a building.)

11.4 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in page 60, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(2) Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the Act of 1925 shall have effect as if the words 'habitually used as a sleeping place were omitted therefrom.
I do not want to argue this case; I put it before the Committee two or three days ago when the Bill was recommitted. The purpose of the Amendment is to
enable the Minister to carry out the undertaking which I, and I think everyone else, understood him to give in Committee upstairs, but which, not through bad faith but through inadvertence, n as not incorporated in the new Clause that he drew up. The Amendment will put the matter right, and enable this valuable power of closing rooms to be made general, as I think everyone agrees is desirable.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I beg to second the Amendment.

11.5 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I hope that I shall satisfy the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that we have met the case that has been put, and I am satisfied that it carries out the undertaking given in the Committee. I am not sure that it is fully appreciated how very far the actual Clause will go as amended. It goes very far. It extends the definition of Section 18 of the Act of 1925 to all underground rooms. That Amendment goes further than any intention that was expressed in the Committee. The position we take—and I think that it meets the whole practical case—is that if the underground room with which the local authority are dealing is unfit for human habitation for any reason they have power to close it under Section 20 of the Act of 1930. They have power to close the room if it is used for sleeping or to close any underground room which is unfit for human habitation. The Amendment of the hon. Member goes further and would enable them to close an underground room which was not unfit for human habitation simply because it was an underground room. There he goes too far. It might be that an underground room was not unfit and was not a sleeping room but perhaps a scullery or washhouse or a room used for some other purpose. To adopt the Amendment would be to go further than is necessary, and in those conditions I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I accept the interpretation by the Minister of the Clause which he has put down, but I have gone into this matter very carefully with authorities and I have been in-
formed definitely that it does riot cover the powers which Kensington have and which were considered desirable by the Committee and which, I understood, were accepted in principle in the Committee upstairs. I do not say that this is an all-important matter, but it has a certain importance, and, if it is possible for the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman to look into the matter a little further, I shall be very much obliged. I think that we are all in agreement on the matter, and it might be possible to have a further scrutiny of the position and see what can be done.

Sir H. YOUNG: I will gladly go into the matter with the bon. Member.

Mr. STRAUSS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move,
That further Consideration of the Bill as amended, be now adjourned.
We have made very considerable progress to-day, a great deal more than I personally had hoped for, and I would ask the Patronage Secretary whether we cannot adjourn now, so that on the next day, which I understand will complete the consideration of the Bill in this House, it may be possible for us to come
to some arrangement whereby the remainder of the Report stage can be finished by 6.30 to allow Members of the House to have some discussion on the Third Reading before the Bill goes to another place.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): The Government certainly do not wish to keep the House sitting unduly late this evening, and, if it be agreed in all quarters that we should finish the Report stage by not later than 6.30 on the next available day, and so have from 6.30 to 11 o'clock to complete the Third Reading, the Government are prepared to adjourn now.

Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) to be further considered To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.